https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282207 Omission of section 16(1)(d) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 did not retrospectively extinguish infancy protection already accrued to an establishment set up before the omission. The Court applied the principle that repeal or amendment does not destroy vested rights, privileges or protections unless legislative intent to do so is express or necessarily implied, and relied on section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The infancy benefit was treated as an accrued protection continuing for the full three-year period from the date of establishment. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jul 2019 15:03:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282207 Omission of section 16(1)(d) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 did not retrospectively extinguish infancy protection already accrued to an establishment set up before the omission. The Court applied the principle that repeal or amendment does not destroy vested rights, privileges or protections unless legislative intent to do so is express or necessarily implied, and relied on section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The infancy benefit was treated as an accrued protection continuing for the full three-year period from the date of establishment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282207