Judgment This MFA is filed U/S 82(2) of ESI Act, against the order dated: 28/11/2003 passed in ESI Application No.90/1999 on the file of the Employees State Insurance Court, Bangalore, allowing the application filed U/S.75(1) (G) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, to declare that the provisions of the ESI Act are not applicable to the applicant and set aside the order dated 18/12/1989 and recover notices dated 30/09/1999 and 05/10/1999. H.G. Ramesh This appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (‘the Act’) by the ESI Corporation is directed against the order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Employees’ State Insurance Court, Bangalore (‘the ESI Court’), in E.S.I Application No.90/1999. By the impugned order, the ESI Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent-establishment by holding that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it in view of the proviso to sub-Section 4 of Section 1 of the Act and consequently has set aside the order dated 18.12.1989 passed by the ESI Corporation determining Rs.4,86,939/- as the contribution payable by the respondent for the period from 27.01.1985 to 31.03.1988. It has also set aside the consequential recovery notices dated 30.09.1999 and 5.10.1999. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the Employees’ State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1989 (Act No.29 of 1989) by which the proviso was inserted, submitted that the proviso came into force on 20.10.1989 and as the period in question was prior to 20.10.1989, the ESI Court has erred in law in relying on the proviso to hold that the Act did not apply to the respondent-establishment. According to the counsel, the ESI Court ought to have held that the proviso was not applicable for the period in question and ought to have examined the question relating to the liability of the respondent. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order. 3. In view of the above, the only question that falls for determination in this appeal is as to whether the proviso to sub-Section (4) of Section 1 of the Act is applicable for the period prior to its coming into force? In other words, whether the proviso is retrospective? The proviso was inserted through an amendment by Act No.29 of 1989 and it came into force on 20.10.1989. In other words, whether the proviso is retrospective? The proviso was inserted through an amendment by Act No.29 of 1989 and it came into force on 20.10.1989. Section 1 of the Act which contains the proviso reads as follows: “1. Short title, extent, commencement and application.– (1) This Act may be called the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. (2) It extends to the whole of India. (3) 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. (4) It shall apply, in the first instance, to all factories (including factories belonging to the Government other than seasonal factories: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to a factory or establishment belonging to or under the control of the Government whose employees are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act. (5) ……………. (6) …………….” The Amendment Act received the assent of the President on 23.08.1989 and was published in the Gazette dated 28.08.1989. The proviso was not given retrospective effect; on the contrary, it was made to come into force on a subsequent date i.e., on 20.10.1989 by notification dated 20.10.1989 issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred on it by sub-Section (2) of Section 1 of the Amendment Act. We find no reason to hold that the proviso is retrospective. In is only prospective. Accordingly, it has no application for the period prior to its coming into force. The period in question in the present case is from 27.01.1985 to 31.03.1988 which is prior to coming into force of the proviso. The ESI Court, without examining this aspect of the matter and by erroneously relying on the proviso, has held that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the respondent-establishment. The ESI Court ought to have examined the matter without applying the proviso. Hence, the matter requires to be re-examined by the ESI Court, Accordingly, we make the following order: The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the ESI Court for reconsideration in accordance with law. Appeal disposed of.