Petitioners ^esDondents H!uH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH: BILASPUR Chief Engineer, Department of Water Resourees, Raipur (Chhattisgsrh). Executive Engineer, Mahanadi Resen/oir Project Phese II, Division Raipur (Chhatisgarh). S. D.0., Mahanad'! Reservoir Proiect Dam Sub- Division No.4, Bhatagson; Distt. Dhamtan ^,i^3'H'ii£f"=!"-h^ ^ -. li iCil!.!:S5^e^si. !j. Versus 'l') 8al Ram Sahu, S/o. Shri Bhuvneshv^ar Prasad Sahu, R/o. Abhanpur Distt. Raipur fChhatti^arh). 2) Labour Court, Raipur (Chhattisaarh). !ndustries Court, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3) (tfvrit Petition under Articte 226/227 of the Constitution of india) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnlhotri, J. Shri A!o!< Bakshl, Govt. Advocate for the petitionsrs/SSate. Shri N.K. Vyas, counsel forthe respondent No.1. (Passed on 28n day ofApril, The petitioners/State seeks a relief that in view of substitutlon in Entri' 16 in the Schedule to the M.P. Industriai Relations Act, 1960 (for short, "the Act, 1960"), the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the case arising from the empioyment in the Government sen,'ioe. 2) The respondent No.1 working as Time Keeper in the Water Resources Department, chalienges termination of his sewices Defore the Labour Court under ihe provisions of Section 31 (3) read with Section 61 orthe Act, 1960. During penciency of the petition, new amendment substituting Entry No.16 oame into forc8 witi-i effect from 20-1 -1999. The original application was fiied by respondent No.1 before Labour Court, Raipur, on 14-8-1995. The petitioners/State made an application that in view of amendment in Entiv'16 of the Schedule to the Act, 1960, the Labour Court has no -2-- iurisdiction. The Labour Court vide its order dated 22-3-1989 csme to the conciusion that the amendment whioh came into foree on 20-1-1999 wouid be prospective as contrary intention of the L^islature has not been shown. Being aggrieved, the State/petitioner took up the matter to the Industrial Court. The Industriai Court by order dated 6-3-2000 (Annexure P/1) dismissed the appea! and affirmed the finding and the order passed by the Labour Court. Thus, this petitlon. 3) Learned oounsei appearing for the petitioners/State submits that the question of lavi/ involved in this petition is asto whether the amendment ciated 20-1-19a9 whereby existing Entry - 16 i.e., Engineering inciuding manufacture of Motor Vehiole was substituted as "Engineering inciuding Motor Vehicte but excluding engineering indust"/ being carried on by any Department of t'ne State Government" would oome mto force with retrospeotive effect?. Learned counsel fairly submits that the issue has been considered and settied by a catena of deciSions and is no longer res integra. 4) A oonstitution Bench of Hon'bie the Supreme Court in the matter of K.S. "ipoornan Vs. State of Kerala and others observed as under: '•'44. A statute dealing with substantive rights differs from a statute which relates to procedure or evidence or is declaraton/ in nature inasmuch as whiie a statute dealino with substantive rights is prima facie, prospective unless it is expressty or by necessary imprcation made to have retrospective effect, a statute concerned mainiy with matters of procedure or evidence or whic'h is declaratow in nature 'nas to be construed as retrospective unless there is a ciear indication that such was not the intention of the Legisiature. A statute is regarded as retrospective if it operates on cases or facts comino into existence before its commencement in the sense that it affects, even if for the' future only, the character or consequences of transactions previously entered into or of other past conduct. By virtue of the presumption against retrospective appiioability of laws dealing with substantive rights transactions are neither invalidated by reason of their failure to complv with format requlrements subsequentlv imposed, nor open to sttack under powers of avoidance subsequertiy conferred. Thsy are aiso not rendered vaHd by JR 1995 SC 1012 l.l:jitS:SwM[<.liNilffcf'llnsfll {}*?/ r>/~>S 7. {Qf}{'t?^ }o soussqe sii} u.i AjaAqogdsojisj psiiddB aq o} pu SJB sin^eis sijip Sujssed 341 rc sous^sixs ui )46u e yonoi uoi^/ft suoisiAOjd,, •i|Binqs3UB|g pjo~j jo spjow su? uj 'siiysisejd uou ;)8qsp sjsuodu-'! UJBLUJOJ sunin^ uourassuoo BAOU AJUO sAjpedsojd sq o} PSLUSBP sj 11 'siuSu Suasixs psjje 01 SJnlBISjBsj 3l|}10 UO!}U3}U! 8L|1 MOUS oi lusioiyns ein}B}s sy'i uj SPJOM SJB ejsq} sssiun 'uoue&iqo Suijsixe JjedLU!- 01 jo suepjnq MSU asodLUi o} jo siu6u DSISSA ps.ye 0} si 3}nie}s sui.io losfqo eui SJSUM siqeoiidde si jejsusB ui sjnj' 34} }ng 'fequjog jo 9}B}s 'A,uous|fi| eABUpe^ ueAeuss>j 38g) 'UOIIBJSdo SAIlOSdsOJlSJ 9AE4 01 SpELU UOj}BO!|dLU! AJ8SS903U AQ JO A|SS9jdX9 Sl }i sssfun SAijosdsojd sioej eiuyd Sl e^niBlS .AJ9A9 IBLII UOipnj}SUOO jo sidiouud isuipjeo e si }| •9J.,, jepun sg pSAjssq'u jjnoo sujsjdno eL|j 'y(8ij}oui "3'S 10 JSBEUJ 31^ U! >u8 (9 '»'(SZ) '2S9 'a'd uoipni}suoo A)o}n3B?s s.pjowojo :seg) -.AiSAjpsdsojd siejsdo ijeqs lusiupusiue ue ieu) uoj}diuns9ja e si SJBLJS psspuj 'Ajej}uoo 341 o} psjjdiu! AIJBSIO ^usiui ue jo }u9iui pssssjdxs ue io soussqe sy} ui 'uogoesuej} joyd 01 uogeoiidde ou awu, HW pue lu'siupeus Sl.! 10 S}BD 8U1 LU04 A|UO )osjj3 aiiBi Ajjensn ||w lustupusuje 34} •SpJOM J9U)0 U| -AJBSSSOeU U0110nj}SUOO uons SSXELU Aijesio sBsnBuei SLJI sssiun 'uoipm^suoo aAipeojisj usAjB sq }ou ii'w. ASLI} 'S8}nl.BiS IBUIDUO 3>|!~| iUOj)BJ3do.3AI}03dsO-l}SJ 0} SAUB)9J ssidiouud [BjsusS sui o} psiqns SJB S9}niB}s Ajoiepusujv,, :pjojMejo 0} Bu.ipjooov 'ssinieis /Ooiepugiue o^ eiqeoiidde Aiisnbs SJB saidiouud ssaqi 'sf7 •(926 PUS gzs 'ZZ6 ' I.Z6 sejed 'M? |OA '•up3 f 'pueiBug p S.WB~| s,Ainqs|Bt-| ess) 'sBuipesoojd Buijiqiyojd Aisssjdxs suois.iAOjd jo USAS sssj6gp SuiAiBA ui U3>)B} ussq seu pBpaye sq 01 pspu3)ui }ou SJSM suoseSiqo Guiisixs teu} MSIA eu) pue '6ui}sixs uayi ssiiiHqe!) ujoj^ suosjsd 3A3!|8J JQU 'tusiusouaiuiuoo jieqi sjo^sq soejd BU!))B} s}U3As p psdssj ui ss!}i|iqei| MSU ssoduji jsyiisu jesdde pu seop uo!}us}ui AJBJIUOO e L|0!UM Ul SUOISIAOjd 'ApejiuJis •soue)sqns o} jo tujo^ 01 Suiisisj jau)8i|w 'WB) syuo suoiiexeisj susnbssqns c R3JIJ A. express enactment or necessary intendment" (see Delhi Clafh & GeneraiMills Co. Lfd., vs. CIT. AIR p.244) "Every statute, it has been said" observed Lopes, L.J'. "which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or Imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disabifity in respect of transactions already past, must be presumed to be intended not to have a retrospeotive effect." (See: Amireddi Rajagopala Rao v. Amireddi Sitharamamma ) As a iogteal coroilary of the general rule, that retrospedive operation is not taken to be intended unless that inSention is manifested by express words or necessary impiication, there is a subordinate rute to the effect that astatute or a section in it is not to be oonstrued so as to have iarger retrospective operation than its language renders necessary. (See : Reid v. Reid' ) . In other words, c!ose attention must be paid to the language of the statutory provision for a'etermining the scope of the retrospeetivity intended bv Pariiament . (See: Union of india Vs. Raghubir Singh ). The above position has been highlighteci in Prinoipies of Statutory [nterpretation by Justice G.P. SinghdO81 Edn., 2006 at pp. 474 and 475)". 6) It has been foilowed later on in subsequent decisions also in the mater of Sangasn Spinners Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Thus, the amended provisions would come jnto force prospectiveiy, uniess contrary intention of the Legislature is shown. 7) in view offoregoing, this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge -' (1965 3 SCR S22; AIR 1965 SC 1970 4 (1886) 31 Ch D 402: 54 LT 100 (CA) 5 (1989) 2 SCC 754: AIR 1_989 SC 1933. 6 (2008) 1 SC.C 391