M.S. Menon, J.
1. The petitioner, Messrs. Vallabhdas Kanji (Private) Limited, Alleppey, discharged 77 workmen consequent on the introduction of a garbling machine in their produce section. Disputes arose regarding this retrenchment, attempts at conciliation failed, and the matter was referred to adjudication. The relevant issues read as follows:
(1) Whether the action of the management in introducing machine for garbling is justifiable? (2) To what reliefs are the workers thrown out of employment consequent on the introduction of the garbling machine entitled, in case, (a) The management is justified in introducing the garbling machine? (b) The management is not justified in introducing the garbling machine?
2. On issue No. 1 the 1st respondent (Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey) accepted the contention of the petitioner and said:
'I find that the action of the management in introducing machinery for garbling is justified.' On the second issue the Tribunal held: 'This is a case where the introduction of machinery has rendered the presence of some workers superfluous. As such it is retrenchment. And when it is found to be retrenchment, the workers retrenched are entitled to get retrenchment compensation as laid down in Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act' and
'Therefore I find that all the seventy seven workers mentioned in Ext. W3 are entitled to retrenchment compensation each at the rate of 15 days' wages for a completed year of service plus one month's wages as notice pay'.
(3) Sec-ion 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reads as follows:
'No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until--
(a) The workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice:
Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service;
(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government'
and there can be no doubt that the Tribunal has dealt with issue No. 2(a) on the assumption that the section applies to the case.
4. Sec:ion 25F was introduced into the Act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953 (Central Act 43 of 1953). Section 1 (2) of that Act said:
'It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 24th day of October, 1953'.
It is common ground that the retrenchment was prior to October 1953 and the Tribunal has also proceeded on that assumption. It is therefore clear -- and it is not contended otherwise --that Section 25F does not apply to the case, that its application was unjustified and that the award of compensation by the Tribunal based on that assumption has to be quashed. Order accordingly.
5. As stated in Sreekantan Nair v.. General Manager, Travancore Mineral Concerns, Chavara, 1955 Ker LT 792:
'It is well settled that amendatory Acts like all statutes generally will have no retrospective operation unless its terms clearly indicate a different intention. No such intent is implicit or manifest in the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953, the only retrospective effect apparently contemplated by the legislature being to the 24th October 19.53 and not to any point of time anterior to that date'.
In Managing Director Newtone Studios Ltd. v. General Secretary Madras State Cinema and Studio Employees Union, AIR 1957 Mad 687, Rajagopalan, J., dealt with the question as follows:
'Even the learned counsel for the respondent does not seek to support the order of the Tribunal that the amending Act was retrospective so as to govern the relationship between the parties. The retrenchment was effected on 10-9-1953 and the basis of compensation can only be that which was the law on that date. Surely Act 43 of 1953 was not applicable then and so could not govern the computation of retrenchment compensation which became payable in September 1953'.
6. There is no reference to Section 25F in the issues referred for adjudication and so the tribunal should now consider issue No. 2 (a), namely.
'To what reliefs are the workers thrown out of employment consequent on the introduction of the garbling machine entitled, in case, (a) The management is justified in introducing the garbling machine'
afresh, apart from and unaided by the provisions of Section 25F.
7. Counsel for the petitioner wants us to make it clear that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are unaffected by this judgment an3 that the only direction given is that the Tribunal should now proceed to consider issue No. 2(a) and give its award without reference to the provisions of Section 25F. We do so.
8. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.