Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.85 seconds)Magic Wash Industries (P) Ltd. And Ors. vs Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner And ... on 26 November, 1998
Besides, the decision in the Magic Wash Industries's case (supra) clearly holds that the intention of the Legislature even in case when the infancy period was reduced from five years to three years was to the effect that it was not to be implemented retrospectively. The learned Advocate for the respondents has not been able to point out any material from which a different view is necessary in relation to the amendment brought about to Section 16(1)(d) of the said Act by deleting the said Clause (d).
Associated Polymers Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 February, 1997
7. I am fortified in the above conclusion in the matter by the two decisions which are relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner. The learned Single Judge of this Court, as he then was in Associated Polymers Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., case (supra), has held that:-
Isha Steel Treatment, Bombay vs Association Of Engineering Workers, ... on 25 February, 1987
In Isha Steel Treatment v. Association of Engg. Workers's case (supra), the Apex Court has held thus:-
Section 6A in The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
The Management Of Indian Cable Co., ... vs Its Workmen on 5 March, 1962
In Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1962) I LLJ 409 this Court has held that he act that the balance sheet was prepared incorporating the trading results of all branches or that the employees of the various branches were treated alike for the purpose of provident fund, gratuity, bonus and for conditions of service in general could not lead to the conclusion that all the branches should be treated as one unit for purposes of Section 25-G of the Act."
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 October, 1985
11. Laying stress on the sentence "establishments which are less than three years old and which are presently excluded from the Act will have to report immediate compliance under the Act," it was sought to be contended on behalf of the respondents that the amended provision has been given the retrospective effect. At the outset, it is to be noted that the sentence sought. to be relied upon is from "the financial memorandum" attached to the Bill which was moved before the Parliament for amendment to Clause (d) of Section 16(1) of the said Act. The said observations in the financial memorandum cannot be construed as the intention of the Legislature to give a retrospective effect to the statutory provision, once the statutory provision on the face of it nowhere discloses any such provision giving retrospective effect while amending the said provision. Furthermore, it is well settled that the reference to the statement of objects and reasons cannot be made to decide the true meaning and effect of the substantive provision (Vide : Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India : Central Bank of India v. Their Workmen : . Besides, in the absence of ambiguity, the question of interpretation of statute and that too by reference to the statement of objects and reasons does not arise. Being so, the reference to the sentence in the financial memorandum regarding the necessity of the establishment already in function to be required to report immediate compliance of the Act cannot be construed as intention of the Legislature to give retrospective effect to the statutory provision.
The Central Bank Of India vs Their Workmen(And Connected Appeals) on 12 May, 1959
11. Laying stress on the sentence "establishments which are less than three years old and which are presently excluded from the Act will have to report immediate compliance under the Act," it was sought to be contended on behalf of the respondents that the amended provision has been given the retrospective effect. At the outset, it is to be noted that the sentence sought. to be relied upon is from "the financial memorandum" attached to the Bill which was moved before the Parliament for amendment to Clause (d) of Section 16(1) of the said Act. The said observations in the financial memorandum cannot be construed as the intention of the Legislature to give a retrospective effect to the statutory provision, once the statutory provision on the face of it nowhere discloses any such provision giving retrospective effect while amending the said provision. Furthermore, it is well settled that the reference to the statement of objects and reasons cannot be made to decide the true meaning and effect of the substantive provision (Vide : Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India : Central Bank of India v. Their Workmen : . Besides, in the absence of ambiguity, the question of interpretation of statute and that too by reference to the statement of objects and reasons does not arise. Being so, the reference to the sentence in the financial memorandum regarding the necessity of the establishment already in function to be required to report immediate compliance of the Act cannot be construed as intention of the Legislature to give retrospective effect to the statutory provision.
1