The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amended provision of a statute will apply prospectively if the statute itself indicates such applicability, and the court will interpret and apply the law accordingly.

Heard Mr. BR Dey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-ESI Corporation. Also heard Mr. BP Kataky, learned counsel for the opposite parties-respondents.

2. The short question of law involved in this appeal is that whether sub­section (6) of section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 amended in the year 1989 shall have the effect of retrospective operation or prospective operation. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant contends that once the respondent-industry started the contribution under the Act, shall be liable for such contribution even after there is less number of employees as prescribed under the Act for making them liable for contribution in terms of the amended provision of section 1 (6) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1949 (herein after in short referred to as Act).

3. Before we go to discuss the issue in hand, it would be appropriate to look into the provision of section 1 (6) which reads as follows:

"(6) A factory or an establishment to which this Act applies shall continue to be governed by this Act notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below the limit specified by or under this Act or the manufacturing process therein ceased to be carried on with the aid of power."

4. The said amended provision has come into force with effect from 20.10.89 after notification in the Official Gazette by the Central Govt. Sub-section (2) of the section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1989 (for short the Amending Act) reads as follows :

"It shall come into force on such date or dates as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and for different States or for different parts thereof and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed in relation to any State or part thereof as a reference to the coming into force of that provision in that State or part thereof"

5. A bare perusal of the said provision of the Amendment Act, clearly shows that the amended provision of law shall be operative only on such date as the Central Govt may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint. In the case in hand, the section 1 (6) started its commencement with effect from 20.10.89.

6. The appellants/ESI Corporation has moved this Court on being aggrieved c by the impugned judgment dated 26.10.93 passed by the ESI Court, Guwahati in ESI Case No.42/91, wherein it was held that the appellant failed to ascertain that the respondent-industry ever had 10 or more employees, and as such, the respondent-industry was not covered by the Act to make any contribution as provided under the Act The period in question for alleged liability for making such ESI contribution is admittedly for the period from August, 1986 to July, 1987.

7. Mr. Kataky, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-industry relying on the date of commencement of section 1 (6) of the Act submits that since the provision of section 1 (6) came into operation only on 20.10.89, the respondent-industry cannot be made liable for any contribution, under the Act for the period from August, 1986 to July, 1987. It is correct that the provision of Section 1 (6) of e the Act as evident from sub-clause (2) of clause 1 of the Amended Act, has not given the retrospective operation by the Legislature and, as such, there cannot be any question of liability of the respondent-industry in the instant case.

8. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel has relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1999) 8 SCC16 (Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo vs. State of Bihar). The principle laid down in the said decision is that since there is no express or implied provision in the Amending Act to indicate that the Act will have retrospective effect, the Amending Act would apply only prospectively. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the aforesaid ruling are quoted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document