https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172633 Omission of the infancy-protection clause in Section 16(1)(d) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act did not extinguish protection already accrued to establishments that had commenced operations before the amendment. Applying the presumption against retrospectivity and Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the law was treated as preserving rights, privileges, and liabilities already acquired unless a contrary intention is clearly shown by express words or necessary implication. The unexpired three-year infancy period therefore continued to run from each establishment's date of setting up, and the amendment could not divest that pre-existing statutory benefit. en-us Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172633 Omission of the infancy-protection clause in Section 16(1)(d) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act did not extinguish protection already accrued to establishments that had commenced operations before the amendment. Applying the presumption against retrospectivity and Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the law was treated as preserving rights, privileges, and liabilities already acquired unless a contrary intention is clearly shown by express words or necessary implication. The unexpired three-year infancy period therefore continued to run from each establishment's date of setting up, and the amendment could not divest that pre-existing statutory benefit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172633