B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent No. 1 is the applicant. It is private Limited Company carrying on business in sale and manufacture of ayurvedic medicines. The normal strength of the employees of the applicant-establishment is about 12. It is also stated that the respondent who is the appellant was in error in having applied the provisions of the Act with effect from 1983 on the presumption that the employment strength of establishment was more than 20 and it was a factory within the meaning of Section 2 (12) of the Act as defined under the ESI Act. The applicant did not use power in the manufacture of its goods. The state Government by virtue of its powers vested in it made the ESI law applicable to the establishment of the applicant with effect from february 1,1987. The applicant is therefore coming under the Act with effect from that date. The appellant herein, without conducting any enquiry asked the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 28,133. 00 as arrears of contribution for the period from April 1983 to August 1986 and referred the matter to the Deputy commissioner, Bijapur District, for recovery as if it were the arrears of land revenue. Therefore, the appellant herein through the machinery of the Deputy Commissioner is threatening to attach the property. The order of the respondent-appellant under Section 45-A of the ESI Act giving retrospective effect is illegal and therefore, the applicant prayed to quash the order of the E. I. Court passed under section 45-A and also prevent the Deputy commissioner from recovering the contributions as if it were arrears of the land revenue. ( 2 ) THIS is resisted by the respondent (appellant)-Corporation. A specific contention is taken up in respect of the limitation and also as far as the retrospective effect is concerned. The Corporation has relied upon the judgment in MFA. No. 1311/1999 wherein it is held that the Act is made applicable retrospectively. ( 3 ) SMT. Geethadevi, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of Section 77, the period of limitation to approach the E. I. Court is only three years, beyond this period if the applicant approached the E. I. Court, it shall not be entertained. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, this is opposed by mr. Uday Shankar. Geethadevi, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of Section 77, the period of limitation to approach the E. I. Court is only three years, beyond this period if the applicant approached the E. I. Court, it shall not be entertained. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, this is opposed by mr. Uday Shankar. He also placed his reliance in the case of Regional Director, Employees' state Insurance Corporation Applicants v. Shashikanth and another. ( 5 ) NO doubt, Section 77 prescribes the period of limitation upto 3 years but in the decision cited, it is enunciated that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable even to the esi Act and also further under the saving clause of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act. In view of the decision by the Bombay High court, I am inclined to hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is made applicable and the e. I. Court has condoned the delay. Hence, it can be held that the application is maintainable. ( 6 ) ANOTHER pertinent question that has to be gone into is that whether the Act is made applicable or not? ( 7 ) AT the very outset, it should be made clear that the admitted facts need not be proved. The respondent no. 1 has submitted the list of the employees for the year 1987 onwards and has paid the contribution for the period. The sole contention is that from 1983 to 1986 the payment is not required to be made. ( 8 ) IN view of the submissions, records of the lower Court are perused. The lower Court has also come to the conclusion that the Act is not made applicable retrospectively. Ex. R. 1 is the report of Inspector who inspected in september 1986 for the period April 1983 to august 1986. Ex. R. 2 is a very important document written by the Nutan Ayurvedic karyalaya. According to this letter, the documents pertaining to April 1983 to August 1986 were produced and the account books for july 1986 and August 1986 were notproduced. According to this letter, the records prior to april 1983 were not arranged, as they were not readily traceable. It is stated further if necessary, the same would be produced during the next inspection. Ex. According to this letter, the records prior to april 1983 were not arranged, as they were not readily traceable. It is stated further if necessary, the same would be produced during the next inspection. Ex. R. 3 is the list of employees employed and the wages amount paid which is produced by R-1. Now, it is stated that such list is not furnished. It is difficult to believe and accept this submission because it is only respondent No. 1 who has submitted this. Smt. Geethadevi strenuously relied upon the endorsement made on this document stating that this list contains the number of employees excluding the casual employees. According to her submission it would come to more than 20 employees. If there were less than 20 employees, there was no necessity for the respondent no. 1 to submit ex. R. 3. ( 9 ) MR. Udayashankar learned Counsel however refuted the submissions of Smt. Geethadevi stating that nowhere in the document it is shown that there were more than 20 employees engaged. ( 10 ) THE scrutiny of Ex. R. 3 shows number of employees engaged by them. But if really there were less than 20 employees, there was no necessity for making an endorsement. It is unnecessary to repeat that admitted facts need not be proved. In another document namely, in ex. R. 5 in para no. 3 it is stated as follows. "in response to the said notice, Dr. Aravind b. Wodeyar, the Manager appeared for personal hearing and pleaded that due to financial difficulties the amount could not be paid and he has no objection in paying the contribution due as per the notice if he is given instalment facility. He was informed that instalment facilities is subject to bank guarantee and also approval of regional Director. He stated that he would write in this behalf. "this recital sets at naught the contention that no opportunity of personal hearing was given. So also, in Ex. P. 9 the list of employees is found place. The contention of Mr. Uday shankar is that no father's name, sur name, native place etc. , are written. As such, it should not be believed. No doubt, the details are required. But this case is entirely different. So also, in Ex. P. 9 the list of employees is found place. The contention of Mr. Uday shankar is that no father's name, sur name, native place etc. , are written. As such, it should not be believed. No doubt, the details are required. But this case is entirely different. Having submitted this to the jurisdiction of the esi Corporation by giving contributions right from 1986, as stated earlier, the only question is whether they are retrospectively liable to pay the compensation or not. ( 11 ) TO meet the point whether they are retrospectively liable to pay or not has to be appreciated in the light of the judgment in mfa. NO. 1311/1999 (unreported judgment ). In this decision, CHANDRASHEKARAIAH J. , has clearly held that ESI Act is made applicable retrospectively. I have no hesitation to accept the submission of Smt. Geethadevi in the light of this judgment. Hence the following order: in the result, the appeal is allowed and the respondent no. 1 is liable to pay the contribution for the period from April 1983 to August 1986. Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks. --- *** --- .