Dipak Misra, J.
1. The factual backdrop, the relief claimed, the question of law being similar these writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts in W.P. No. 3592/1997 are herein adumbrated.
2. Before I proceed to state the facts which are essential for disposal of these writ petitions, it may be mentioned at the threshold that the petitioners had prayed for quashment of notification dated July 11, 1997 published in the Gazette on July 14, 1997 contained in 'Annexure P4' and for quashing of letter dated August 2, 1997 'Annexure P-5' and letter dated August 8, 1997 'Annexure P-6'. Many a ground has been taken in the writ petition challenging the legal validity of the notification contained in 'Annexure P-4' but in course of hearing Mr. V.S. Dabir, learned senior counsel with Mr. A.G. Dhande for the petitioners have fairly stated that they do not intend to challenge the validity of the notification and would confine the challenge to the action taken by the Labour Commissioner and other authorities, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein, who have misinterpreted the Government notifications issued from time to time and have made a demand for recovery of Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) at the rate of 2 paise per unit for the period May 25, 1996 to September 30, 1997, though such a demand does suffer from lack of authority.
3. Sans unnecessary details the factual backdrop which has given rise to the filing of the present writ petition is that the State Government vide notification dated May 23, 1996 published in M.P. Rajpatra on May 25, 1996 issued under Section 5 (i) (b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 read with Minimum Wages (M.P. Amendment and Validation) Act, 1961 increased the Variable Dearness Allowance in respect of the employees working in Bidi Manufacturing concerns to 2 paise. While fixing so, the State Government had linked it with the cost of living index for the period January, 1993 to December, 1993. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid enhancement the petitioner preferred a writ petition No. 2731/1996 and simultaneously submitted a representation to the State Government for reconsideration of the matter. The State Government re-examined the entire matter and came to the conclusion that the rate of Variable Dearness Allowance requires to be revised and accordingly vide notification dated December 12, 1996 published in M.P. Gazette on December 17, 1996 was brought into existence. The said notification has been brought on record as 'Annexure P-2' whereby the State Government while not changing the basis, changed the Dearness Allowance from 2 paise to 1 paise. In view of the changed scenario the petitioner withdrew his writ petition. The State Government eventually brought the notification on June 5, 1997. published in the Gazette on June 7, 1997 'Annexure P-3' fixing the Variable Dearness Allowance at 1 paise per point. At this juncture the petitioner made a representation to the Labour Commissioner on August 7, 1997 wherein it was stated that as per the spirit of the notification dated June 5, 1997 VDA would be payable at the rate of 1 paise a per point for rise over index 1206 (1960=100). The State Government issued another notification on July 11, 1997 published in M.P. Rajpatra on July 14, 1997 wherein it was stipulated that the effective date of notification dated June 5, 1997 was changed from the date of publication of the notification in the M.P. Gazette to October 1, 1997. The; said notification has been brought on record as 'Annexure P-4'. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 issued instructions for recovery of Dearness Allowance at the rate of 2 paise per point from May 25, 1996 to September 30, 1997 and 1 paise from October 1, 1997. Pursuant to the direction given by the respondent No. 2 vide 'Annexure P-5', the respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner to make payment at the said rate for the aforesaid period. This demand is the cause of grievance of the petitioner. It is averred in the writ petition (1 barring the grounds challenging legal validity of the notification) that such demand made by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is totally legal and unjustified,' because the notification vide 'Annexure P-1' was no longer in force after issuance of Annexure P-3 and the demand can be made only from October 1. 1997.
4. A return has been filed by the answering respondents, contending inter alia, that the challenge in the notification on various grounds are not tenable in the eye of law. It is also put forth in the return that by notification dated December 12, 1996 published in the M.P. Gazette dated December 17, 1996 it was proposed that the rate of Variable Dearness Allowance would be 1 paise per point after considering the public objections and thereafter the notification was published on June 7, 1997 'Annexure P-3' which has been given effect to, by subsequent notification, from October 1, 1997 and therefore, the demand made by the respondents has authority in law. It is relevant to state here as the amendment to the writ petition was filed and the same was allowed by order dated January 1, 1998 an additional reply has been filed by reiterating their earlier stand and further contending that as per the notification dated May 25, 1996 rate was fixed at 2 paise per thousand rolling of 'bidis', an index for average and the State Government by final notification dated June 5, 1997 published on June 7, 1997 fixed the Dearness Allowance at the rate of 1 paise applicable from the date of publication in the Gazette i.e. June 7, 1997 which was further changed by notification dated July 14, 1997 making it payable from October 1, 1997. Thus, it is contended that initial enhancement of 2 paise per unit remained in force till October 1, 1997.
5. An application for intervention was filed by 'Ghai Khata Bidi Mazdoor Union'. Burhanpur stating that the labourers who are employed in the manufacture of bidis have an interest in the litigation, considering the stand taken in the application of the intervener and this Court allowed the same on April 30,1998.
6. I have heard Mr. Dabir, learned senior counsel With Mr. A.G. Dhande for the petitioner, Mr. V. Awasthy, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Manish Datt, learned counsel for the intervenor. The learned counsel for the petitioner who has already been indicated earlier, did not address this Court with regard to legal validity of the notification. He has confined his submissions by referring to 'Annexure P-1' dated July 25, 1996 whereby the Variable Dearness Allowance for an employee of a 'bidi' manufacturing unit was fixed at 2 paise and further built-up his argument that by notification dated December 12, 1996 the same has been superseded and the final notification has come on June 7, 1997. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the effect of supersession of earlier notification is that revision of the Dearness Allowance by subsequent notification would govern the field and therefore a 'bidi' worker would be entitled to get 1 paise towards Dearness Allowance and not 2 paise as have been demanded by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
7. Mr. Awasthy, learned Dy. G.A. has contended that vide 'Annexure P-2' there was no supersession of the earlier notification but on the contrary, it was a proposal to modify the enhanced rate which eventually got concretised by notification dated June 7, 1997 and it has been given prospective effect from October 1, 1997 as per notification dated July 14, 1997 and, therefore, the earlier notification dated June 25, 1996 remained in vogue from May 25, 1996 till September 30, 1997 and, therefore, the steps taken by the respondents for recovery is unassailable.
8. Mr. Manish Datt, learned counsel for the intervenor has supported the stand taken by the State Government.
9. The pivotal question that falls for determination is the effect and impact of the various notifications that have been issued by the State Government from time to time. As far as notification dated May 25, 1996 is concerned, there is no dispute that the Dearness Allowance was to be paid at the rate of 2 paise from the date of notification published in the Gazette i.e. June 25, 1996. The second notification which was published on December 17, 1996 in M.P. Rajpatra requires to be considered. In the said notification it has been mentioned that as there has been number of representations for reconsideration of the notification dated May 25, 1996 it was decided keeping in view the various factors, the matter may be looked into again. After stating so at the beginning of the notification it has been further stated as follows:
(Vernacular matter omitted)
10. As has been stated earlier, after this notification, a notification was issued on June 7, 1997 modifying the rate to 1 paise. The relevant portion of the said notification reads as follows:
(Vernacular matter omitted)
11. The aforesaid notification though initially was given effect to from the date of publication in M.P. Rajpatra, later on by notification dated July 14, 1997 an amendment was incorporated which reads as under:
'Amendment
'In the said notification for the words from the date of publication of the notification in the 'Madhya Pradesh Gazette' the words and figure 'from October 1, 1997' shall be substituted.'
12. From the aforesaid there remains no iota of doubt that the notification dated June 7, 1997 is to take effect from October 1, 1997 and by the said notification there has been modification in the rate of Dearness Allowance. The question that really requires determination is whether by notification dated December 17, 1996 the effect of the earlier notification brought on June 25, 1996 has been annulled. Mr. Dhande, has strenuously urged that by notification dated December 17, 1996 the Government had superseded the earlier notification and putforth a proposal. The learned counsel for the State, per contra, would like this Court to interpret that vide 'Annexure P-2' the State Government had only putforth the proposal inviting objections and it got the touch of finality only on June 7, 1997 as per 'Annexure P-3' true it is, there was a proposal under 'Annexure P-2' but it is not a proposal simpliciter. The words used in the notification are' 'Adhikramit Karte Hue'. Prior to use of these words reasons have been given why re-thinking was necessary for revision/ modification of certain aspects of the earlier notification. The meaning of the word 'Adhikram' as has been given in 'ALLIED CHAMBERS TRANSLITERATED HINDI-ENGLISH DICTIONARY' is 'supersession'. Thus the effect of the notification, dated May 23, 1996 has been taken away by the later notification dated December 17, 1996 with a proposal to revise the rates. Hence, the foresaid notification remained in vogue from May 25, 1996 till December 17, 1996. As far as this period is concerned, the Dearness Allowance is payable at the rate of 2 paise as the effect of the notification has not been annulled with retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that even for this period the petitioner should be liable to pay at the rate of I paise per unit inasmuch as the notification brought later on have to be construed to have retrospective effect, if they are appreciated in proper perspective in obtaining factual matrix. On a perusal of the notifications contained in 'Annexure P-3' and 'Annexure P-4' nothing appears to give the said notifications retrospective effect. It is well settled in law that unless a notification is specifically stated to have retrospective effect it has to have the prospective effect. In this context, I may usefully refer to the decision rendered in the case of Sri Vijayalakshmi Rice Mills, New Contractors Co. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1976 AIR SC 1471, wherein the Apex Court registered the views as under:
'It is a well recognized rule of interpretation that in the absence of express words or appropriate language from which retrospectivity may be inferred, a notification takes effect from the date it is issued and not from any prior date.'
13. Keeping in view the factual matrix and applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, I am of the considered view that the notifications by which the rate has been revised, have no retrospective effect. I may observe in passing that as per the 'Annexure P-4' the notification has been specifically made prospective.
14. In view of the aforesaid premises, the petitioners would be liable to pay at the rate of 1 paise from May 25, 1996 till December 17, 1996 and thereafter as per the notifications contained in 'Annexure P-3' and 'Annexure P-4'. Accordingly, the demand made by the respondents for the entire period i.e. May 25, 1996 to September 30, 1997 at the rate of 2 paise is untenable. It would be open to the authorities to raise a fresh demand as per law.
15. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.