Retrospective statutory amendment did not defeat reinstatement rights where workmen were found to remain in service on nationalisation date.

Workmen found on evidence to have remained in service on the appointed date of nationalisation were entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, because the statutory protection attached to their continued employment and the factual finding was treated as unimpeachable. A retrospective substitution of Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act did not nullify that entitlement or render the tribunal's award a nullity, as an amendment will not extinguish accrued rights unless it validly and expressly does so. The award of reinstatement was therefore upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the concerned workmen were employees of the colliery on the date of take over and were therefore entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service; (ii) whether the substitution of Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 with retrospective effect destroyed the workmen's right or rendered the tribunal's award a nullity.

Issue (i): whether the concerned workmen were employees of the colliery on the date of take over and were therefore entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service.

Analysis: The finding recorded on appreciation of evidence was that the workmen had continued in service at the time of nationalisation and had merely been prevented from working thereafter. That factual determination was accepted as unimpeachable. On that footing, the award directing reinstatement with continuity of service was supported by the evidence and by the statutory protection that continued employment of covered workmen upon nationalisation.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the workmen.

Issue (ii): whether the substitution of Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 with retrospective effect destroyed the workmen's right or rendered the tribunal's award a nullity.

Analysis: The substitution of a provision by an amending law may amount to repeal of the earlier provision and introduction of a new one, but the effect on existing rights depends on whether the amendment validly and expressly takes away vested rights. The amended provision did not affect the position of workmen who were found to have remained in employment on the appointed date, and the retrospective amendment relied upon by the appellant did not nullify the tribunal's factual and legal conclusion in their favour.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the workmen.

Final Conclusion: The award of reinstatement was upheld and the appeals failed, as the workmen were found to be in service on the appointed date and the later amendment did not defeat that entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective substitution of a statutory provision will not defeat a workman's accrued protection where the factual finding is that the workman remained in employment on the appointed date and the amendment does not expressly extinguish that right.

---