S.L. SRINIVASA JUTE TWINE MILLS P. LTD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 235 · Decided: 15-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
i 
' 
-\"' 
S.L. SRINIVASA JUTE TWINE MILLS P. LTD. 
A 
v. 
• 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR . 
FEBRUARY 15, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
~· 
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; 
Section 16 with amendments: 
Infancy protection to newly set up factories/establishments-Exemption c 
clause-Removal of exemption clause by the amending Act of 1998-Effect of 
amendment on the existing rights-Held: Every statute prima facie prospective 
in effect unless legislature expressly or by necessary implication make it 
retrospective in effect-Jn terms of the provisions of repeal in the General 
Clauses Act unless different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any D 
rights/privilege or liability acquired/accrued or incurred under the enactment/ 
.... 
repeal/amendment-Since protection accrued to the factories/establishments 
~ 
prior to amendment, in 1997, they are entitled to the protection-Hence, 
Judgments of High Court indefensible-General Clauses Act, 1897-Section 
6. 
E 
Legal Maxims: 
Maxim 'nova constitutio futuris formam unponere debet non 
practeritis'-Applicability of 
Appellant mills filed writ petitions before the High Court praying F 
__ l 
for issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare that Act IO of 1998 which 
was seeking to amend provisions of Section 16 of the Employees Provident 
Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, shall not apply to them and 
they would continue to have the "infancy protection" for a period of 3 
years starting from the date of establishment of the industries. The High G 
Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petitions. Hence the 
~-
present appeal. 
' 
-~;..:--\ 
Appellants contented that the High Court has clearly erred in holding 
that the accrued rights were in no way affected or altered by effecting 
235 
H 
) 
236 
SUPRE\1E l'Ol:RT REPORTS 
(2006) 2 S.C.R. 
A amendments in the Act since under the un-amended provisions they were 
'-. 
entitled to the protection for the infancy period. 
Respondents submitted that in public interest the amendment can 
be done; and that keeping the ultimate welfare of the workers in view the 
amendment in the provisions of law was made and the exemption was not 
B granted to any category of establishment. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. In terms of Clause (c) of Section 6 of the General Clauses 
Act, unless a different intention appears the repeal shall not affect any 
C right, privilege or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the 
enactment repeal. The effect of the amendment in the instant case is the 
same. (243-CI 
2. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima 
D facie prospective in effect unless it is expressly or by necessary implication 
made to have retrospective operation. Unless there are words in the statute 
sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect existing rights, 
it is deemed to be prospective only 'nova constitutio faturis formam imponere 
debet non praeteritis '. The judgments of the High Court are indefensible 
and are set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to the protection as had 
E accrued to them prior to the amendment in 1997 for the period of 3 years 
starting from the date the establishment was set up irrespective of repeal 
of the provision for such infancy protection. (243-D-E; 244-CI 
Jayantilal Amratlal v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1971) 1193; 
Govinddas and Ors. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr., AIR (1977) SC 552; 
F Magic Wash Industries (P) Ltd v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 
Panaji and Anr., (1999) Lab. I.C. 2197; Keshvan Madhavan Memon v. State 
of Bombay, AIR (1951) SC 128; Delhi Cloth Mills & General Co. Ltd v. CIT. 
Delhi, AIR (1927) PC 242 and Amireddi Raja Gopala Rao v. Amireddi 
Sitharamamma, AIR (1965) SC 1970, relied on. 
G 
H 
Reid v. Reid, (1886) 31 Ch D 402, referred to. 
"Principles of Statutory Interpretation" by Justice G.P. Singh. (Tenth 
Edition, 2006) at PP. 474, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6777 of2003. 
S.L. SRINIVASA JUTE TWINE MILLS P LTD. 1'. U.0.1. [PASA VAT, J ] 
23 7 
.\./ 
' 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.2002 of Andhra Pradesh High A 
... 
' 
Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 33660,3199IJ1994 of 1998 and 13929 of 
2000, 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 6780, 6779 and 6778/2003. 
S.S. Rana, B. Rana, Vikrant Rana and Ms. Amaya Singh for the 
Appellant. 
K. Radhakrishnan, C.V. Subba Rao, Ajay Sharma, B.K. Prasad and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.