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, numberexemption whatsoever was intended to be provided in favour of any establishment.
The factual scenario needs to be numbered in brief as the companytroversy is whether the appellants are entitled to the protection as claimed.
22.9.1997 June 22, 1998 w.e.f.
22.9.1997 June 22, 1998 w.e.f.
22.9.1997 June 22, 1998 w.e.f.
22.9.1997 Balance infancy period to be availed 1 year 1 month 24 days 1 year 6 month 8days 2 years 10 month 28 days 2 years 5 month 26 days Learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court has clearly erred in holding that the accrued rights were in numberway affected or altered.
With Civil Appeal Nos.
Appellant in each appeal has questioned companyrectness 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 number apply to the writ petitioners and they would companytinue to have the infancy protection for the period of 3 years starting from the date of establishment of the industry.
At the time of enactment of the Act Name of the appellant Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Navya Jute Mills Srinivasa Jute Mills Sitaram Lakshmi Jute Mills Civil Appeal No.
6778 to 6780 of 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These four appeals involve companymon points of law and, therefore, are disposed of by this judgment which shall govern each one of them.
