IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12492 of 2007. Date of Decision : March 18, 2009. M/S Liberty Shoes Limited, Karnal. ...... Petitioner. Versus. The Director General Employees' State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate,with Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate, for the respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present case, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the notification under Section 1 sub-clause (3) has been issued by the competent authority on 21.02.2006, making the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short “E.S.I. Act”), applicable from 01.03.2006 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter-IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) but the petitioner was only intimated, vide letter dated 22.06.2006 with regard to the registration of the employees in pursuance to the implementation of E.S.I. Act. He on this basis submits that the liability of the petitioner-company would commence from the date of such intimation and not from the date of notification. He contends that although the notification has been issued earlier but it cannot have retrospective effect and should be held applicable prospectively from the date C.W.P. No. 12492 of 2007. of intimation. He contends that from June, 2006 onward, the contribution of the petitioner-company has already been made as per E.S.I. Act. He further contends that since it is in the nature of fee, therefore, it cannot have retrospective operation. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contends that the notification has been issued under Section 1 sub-clause (3) of the E.S.I. Act which states that the provisions of the Act as specified in the notification, would come into effect from the date such notification is issued by the competent authority i.e. Central Government or as specified in the notification which is therefore prospective with effect from the date of its implementation as specified in the notification which would be the appointed date. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the provisions of E.S.I. Act. This is apparent from the provisions of Section 1 sub-clause (3) of the Act itself that the moment, the notification is issued or the time is specified therein, the Act comes into force. In this view of the matter, since notification dated 21.02.2006 has been issued by the Central Government wherein 01.03.2006 was the appointed date giving effect to the provisions of the E.S.I. Act which has been mentioned therein, the contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner-company, cannot be accepted. Finding no merit in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 18, 2009. sjks. -2-