ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the Special Appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the Special appeal was to the judgment of a learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed upholding the decision of the regional Provident Fund Commissioner (in short the 'commissioner' ). It was held that Section 16 (1) (d) of the employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') was omitted from the statute by Act No. 10 of 1998 with retrospective effect i. e. from 22. 9. 1997. In other words, it was held that the infancy protection shall not be available to the appellant factory after 22. 9. 1997.

( 2 ) THE factual scenario lies into a very narrow compass. Appellant started production on 1. 9. 1995 and according to it, it was entitled to benefit under Section 16 (1) (d) of the Act from that day. From August, 1998 appellant started to comply with the provisions of the Act as the three year fledging period as envisaged under Section 16 (1) (d) of the Act came to an end. On 26. 3. 1999 enquiry under Section 7a of the