T Petitioners 1 S Chief Engineer, uepartment of VVater Resources. Rsiour fChhsttiSosrh). 2) Execuiive EnRineer, Mananad! Reservoir Proieci phggg II i)|v|s?op Ratour fChhst'sasTh). 3) S.D.0., Mahanadi Resen/oir Proiect Dam SUD- Oiyis'op No,4, Bhstsoson, D!stt. DhspTtsri (Crihattisoarh). * t?iesDonaents 1) ^) Noor Sinah. S/o. Shri C.R. Sahu. R/o. Abnanour. DistS. Rsipur (Ch'nattisgar'n). Labour Court, Raipur (Chhattisgsrh). Industries Court, Raipur (Chhatiissamj. Writ Petition under Articie 226i227 of the Constitutlon of Indiaj 3B: Hon'bie Mr. Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. 'resenfc Shri Alok Bstehi, Govt. Adwcate for the petitioners/State. Shri N.K. Vyas, counsei fcnhe respondent No.1. ORAL :•) s.ssed on 28"' dav n pri!. 2i. The petitloners/State seek a reltef that in view of substitution in Ent";,' 16 in tne Schedule to the ivi.P. industriai Relations Act, 1860 (for short, "the Act, 1960"), the Labour Court has no junsdiction to deal with the case ansiRg from the employment in The Government servlce. 2) The respondent No.1 working as Time Keeper in the Vvater Resourees Department, chailenaes termination of his services before the Labour Court under t'ne provisions of Section 31 (3) read with Sectlon 61 ofthe Aci, 1960. ^Dunng pendency of the peiition, new amendment substitutina Entry No.16 came into force with erfect rrom 20-1-1 S99. The originai application was fiied by respondent No.1 before Labour Court, Raipur, on 30-9-1985. The petitioners/SSate made an appiication that in view of amendment in Entw 16 cf the Scheduie to the Act, 1980, tne Labour Court .has no fff ^,. i g - 2 iurisdiction. The Labour Court V!de its order oated 22-3-1999 came to the conciusion Shat the amendmeni which carne into fbrce on 20-1-1999 wouid be prospective as contrar, interstion of ihe L«3isiature has not been shown. Beins aagrieved, the State/petitioner took up the matter to the Inaustriai Court. The industriai CourT bv orcier dateo 6-3-2000 (Annexure P/1) dismissed the appeai and affirmed the finding and ths order passed by t'ne Labour Court. Thus, this petition. 3) Learned counsel appeanng for the petitioners/'State submits that the question of law involved in this petition is asto whether the amendment cated 20-1-1999 whereby existing Entn/ - 16 i.e., Enaineenns inciudina manufacturs of IViotor Venide was substituted as "EnsineerinQ inciuding Motor Vehicle but excludinB engineerina industFi? being carned cn oy sny DeDartment of the State Governmsnr' wouid come into Toree with retrosDectlve enect?. Learned counsel rairly submits that the issue has been considered and settieo bv a catena of aec'sions and ;s no ,onger res integra. 4) A constitLition Bench of Hon'bie tne Supreme Cour!: in the niatter of K.S. parloooman Vs. Stete of Kerala and others obser'/eci as under: "44. A statute deaiinci with substantive riahts differs from a statute which reiates to procedure or evidence or is aeclaratow in nature inasmuch as whiie a statute dealing with substantlve rights is prima facie, prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary impiicatton maae to nave retrospective erfeot, a statute concerned mainlv with matters of procedure or evidence or which is declaratop/ in nature has to be construed as retrospsctive unless tnere is s ciear indication that such was not the intentlon ofthe LeQ'Blature. A statute is regarded as retrospective if :i operates on osses or facts coming into existence before its commencement in the sense that it affects, even if for the fliture oniy, the character or consequenoes of transactions previousiy entered into or of other pasf conduct. By virtue of the presumption against retrospective applicabHity of iaws oeal'ng with substantive nsras transactions are neitner 'nvaliaatea ov reason or trieir failurs to comply with formai requiremerts subssquently imposed; nor open to s'ttack under powers of avoidanoe subsequentiy conferred. They are also nct rendered valid by A!R1995SC10;2 ^L - 3 '"<<t suDsequent relaxstions ofthe law, whsther relstina to form or to substance. SimiiariV. orovisions in wnicn a contrary 'nteniion does not appear neitner imcose new iiacsiinies 1" resDect of events takinfi place before their cornffiencement, nor reiieve persons from ilabilities then exssv.ng, and the wew inat exisiing ooiigations wera not inienoea 10 De arrectea nas been taken 'n varying aegrees even or provissoris expressiy prohibrting procsedings. (Sss Haiabury's Laws of Enaianc, 4" Edn.. Voi 44. Darss 921. 322. 925 and 926\ 4o. i nese DnnciDies are eaLialiv applicaDiS 10 arnencarorv statuies. Accordina to Crav»fcrd: "Amendatory statutes are suDject to the generai principies reiative to retrospemive operation. Lite origina' statutes, tney wiil not bs glven retroactive construction, unisss the iaiiguage oleariv makes such constructlon "ecessarv. In other words, the amendment w"l usualiv tate ettect oniv rroiTi the date OT its enactment and will have no aDpiication to prior trensaction, in the absence ot an exoressed intent or an intent ciearlv imDliea So !he ccntran/. Indeed there is a cres-imDtion .that an amendment shat! ooerate prospeciiveiy. fSee: Crowtoro's isLSTuiory L/OiiSLrucaon pp. &^<;, (.^o), . •wg 0) in the mattsr of S.L. Srinivasa juts Tw'ne i"3ii's tr'j Ltd., Vs. Unjon cf indla and another'. the Sun'e'T'e Court observed as undsr: "16. it is a csrdinal Dnncipis of construction thar everv statute is orima Tac®prospective un!ess it is expresslv or oy necessary impiication made to have reirospective operaiion. (See Keshavan iViadhava ivienon v. Staie of Bombsy. But tne ru!e in generai is applicabie where the object cf the ststute is to afTect vested riahts or to mpose new burderis or to impair exlstina obiication. Uniess tnere are woros in the staiute sufncisni to snow ine inTenlion or tne legisiaiure to arrect exiai:,ng ngnts, it is deemed io &e Drosoective onlv nova constrtut!on ruturis mrmam irnponere aeoet, non prasterii's. ]n tne woras OT Lorc Bianesburah, "prcivisions wnicn toucn a ngnt in exisience at ine pass.ng OT ;ne statute are not to be spuiied retrospectively in ths abssnce of tT ^^iRiiB si-ag L-1 express enactment or necessartf intendment" (see Daihi Claiti & GeneralMilis Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, AIR p.244) "Every statute, it has been sald" obserired Lopes, Lj. "which takes away or Impairs vested rights accjuired under existina laws,.or creates a new obiiaatlon or imooses a new duty, or attachss a new disability in respect oi transactions already oast, must be presumed to be infenced noi to have a retrospective effect." (See: Amireddi RaiagoDala Rao v. Amireddl Sitharamamma^) As a iogical coroiiary or the seneral ruie, that retrospective ODeratlon 'is not taken to oe intended uniess that intention is manifested by express words or necessai'y implication, thsre is a subordinate rLile to the effect that a ststute or a section in it is not to be construed so as to have iarger retrosDective operation than its iangua.ge renders necessan. (See : Reid v. Reid* ) . in other words, close attention must be paid to the ianguage of the statL.TOp/ provision for determining the scope or the retrospectivity intended by Parilament . (See; Union of india Vs. Raahubir Sinah" ). The above position has been highlighted in Principies of Statutory interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh(10'-'' Edn, 2006 at pp. 474 and 475)". 6) it has been foliowed later on in subsequent decisions aiso in the mater of Sanaam Spiiiners Vs. Regjona! Provident Fund Gonimlssioner . Thtis, the amencied provisions wouia come into force prospeotiveiy, unless contrary intention of the Leaisiature is snown. 7) In view of foregoing, this petitlon Is disiTiissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge r:i li:]'<: \