SANGAM SPINNERS versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 883 · Decided: 04-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SANGAM SPINNERS 
A 
v. 
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I 
DECEMBER 4, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] 
B 
Employees Provident Funds Act, l 952-s. l 6(1)(d)-Infancy 
protection-To newly set up factories, by way of exemption from 
applicability of the Act for 3 years-Omission of exemption provision C 
in 1998 w.r.e.f 22-9-1997-Held: Irrespective of the omission, 
appellant factory, which was set up on 1-9-1995, entitled to protection 
for full 3 years startingfrom the date of set up-General Clauses Act 
1897-s.6 (c). 
Repeal-Effect of, on accrued right-General Clauses Act 1897- D 
s.6 (c). 
Interpretation of Statutes-Retrospective or prospective 
operation-Determination-Held: Every statute is prima facie 
prospective unless expressly or by necessary implication made to have E 
retrospective operation. 
Appellant factory was set up on 1-9-1995. Newly set up factories 
were entitled to infancy protection i.e. exemption from applicability 
of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, for 3 years from the 
date of set up. The provision for such infancy protection i.e. clause F 
(d) of s.16(1) of the Act was omitted from the statute in 1998, but 
with retrospective effect, from 22-9-1997. 
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner held that in view 
of the omission of s.16(1 )( d) of the Act with retrospective effect, the G 
benefit of exemption thereunder was available to appellant-factory 
only till 22-9-1997 and not thereafter. That order was affirmed by 
the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
883 
H 
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I.In terms ofClause(c)ofs.6 of the General Clauses 
Act, 1897 unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not 
affect any right, privilege or liability acquired, accrued or incurred 
B under the enactment repealed. The effect of the amendment in the 
instant case is the same. [Para 16) [891-CJ 
1.2. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute 
is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary 
implication made to have retrospective operation. But the rule in 
C general is not applicable where the object of the statute is to affect 
vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing 
obligations. 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 futuris formam imponere 
D debet non praeteritis'. As a logical corollary of the general rule, that 
retrospective operation is not taken to be intended unless that 
intention is manifested by express words or necessary implication, 
there is a subordinate rule to the effect that a statute or a section in 
it is not to be construed so as to have larger retrospective operation 
E than its language renders necessary. In other words close attention 
must be paid to the language of the statutory provision for 
determining the scope of the retrospectivity intended by Parliament. 
[Para 17) [891-D, E, G; 892-AJ 
) 
Keshvan Madhavan Memon v. State of Bombay, AIR (1951) SC 
>-
F 128; Delhi Cloth Mills & General Co. Ltd v. CIT. Delhi AIR (1927) 
PC 242; Amireddi Raja Gopala Rao v. Amireddi Sitharamamma, AIR 
(1965) SC 1970; Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, AIR (1989) SC 
(1933); State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa & 
Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 19; Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. C.R. 
G Rangadhamaiah & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 623 and S.L. Srinivasa Jute 
Twine Mills (P) Ltd v. Union of India and Anr., (2006) 2 SCC 740, 
relied on. 
Jayantilal Amratlal v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1971) SC 
1193; Govinddas and Ors. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr., AIR (1977) 
H 
SANG AM SPINNERS v. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND 885 
COMMISSIONER-I [PASA YAT,J.] 
SC 552 and Magic Wash Industries (P) Ltd v. Assistant Provident Fund A 
Commissioner, Panaji andAnr., (1999) Lab.I.C. 2197, referred to. 
Reid v. Reid, (1886) 31 Ch D 402, referred to. 
"Principles of Statutory Interpretation" by Justice G.P. Singh. 
-1 
(Tenth Edition, 2006), referred to. 
B 
2. The appellant shall be entitled to the protection for the period 
of three years starting from the date the establishment was set up 
irrespective of the repeal of the provision for such infancy protection. 
[Para 20) [892-E] C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1785 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 29.11.2000 of the High 
Court ofRaj

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.