Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) THESE four appeals involve common points of law and, therefore, are disposed of by this judgment which shall govern each one of them. Appellant in each appeal has questioned correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed before the High Court praying issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare that Act 10 of 1998 seeking to amend provisions of Section 16 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the 'Act') shall not apply to the writ petitioners and they would continue to have the "infancy protection" for the period of 3 years starting from the date of establishment of the industry. The High Court by the impugned judgments dismissed the writ petitions holding that the amendment was intended to take away certain benefits by way of necessary amendments to Section 16 and the question as to whether any vested right are sought to be affected would arise only when the provisions are given retrospective operation.
(2.) IT was held that the real intention was to deal with the establishments universally on equal footing under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, no exemption whatsoever was intended to be provided in favour of any establishment. On and from date of enforcement of the amended provisions all establishments including the establishments who had enjoyed the benefit of exemption are brought within the purview of the operation of the Act and they in no way alter any of the rights accrued in favour of the writ petitioners' establishments. The factual scenario needs to be noted in brief as the controversy is whether the appellants are entitled to the protection as claimed. JUDGEMENT_162_SUPREME2_2006Html1.htm Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court has clearly erred in holding that the accrued rights were in no way affected or altered. In fact, under the unamended provisions the appellants were entitled to the protection for the infancy period as provided in the Act.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that in public interest the amendment can be done and this is a case where keeping the ultimate welfare of the workers in view the amendment was made and the exemption was not granted to any category of establishment. That according to learned counsel for the respondents meet the requirements of law and the judgment of the High Court is therefore not open to challenge. The position of Section 16 at different points of time can be noticed. Section 16 as originally enacted read as follows : "16. Act not to apply to factories belonging to Government or local authority and also to infant factories. This Act shall not apply to- (a) any factory belonging to the government or a local authority, and (b) any other factory established whether before or after the commencement, of this Act unless three years have elapsed from its establishment. ;