.1. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this LPA are; (i) That the respondent workman was employed with the appellant as a Security Guard. On 05.06.1991 while returning to his house after discharging his duties, he met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries rendering him unsuitable for employment as security guard, thereafter he proceeded on medical leave. He was referred to DTC medical board where he refused to appear. He was prematurely retired from service w.e.f. 22.02.1994 vide letter dated 18.05.1994. The respondent aggrieved by the aforesaid order raised a Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Delhi Administration for issuing directions to the Management for reinstating him in service. Govt. of NCT of Delhi referred the dispute between the respondent and the appellant to the Labor Court registered as ID No. 118/1996; (ii) The same was adjudicated upon by the Presiding Officer, Labor Court VII. Vide order

.dated 18.02.2002 an award was given in favor of the respondent directing inter alia his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. It was further held that if the workman cannot be retained as a Security Guard, the management shall deal with his case in terms of the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’), as those provisions will prevail over any other administrative guidelines laid down by the management. The said Act came into being only in 1995 and was not applicable when the respondent suffered injury or was terminated out of service as the said Act was enforced only on 7.02.1996; (iii). The award delivered by the Labor Court was upheld by a learned Single Judge of this Court who was pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the appellant-corporation being CWP No. 2735/2003 for quashing the award. It is this judgment delivered on 25.04.2003 which is the subject matter of adjudication before us.

.2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the primary question to be gone into by this Court in this LPA is as to ‘whether the provisions of Section 47 of the said Act can have retrospective operation’. It is his contention that this is not the mandate of the Act. He has also relied upon the following judgments: I) P. Mahendran and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 405. ii) The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-DSWO Vs. M/s B.V. Reddy and Sons AIR 2002 SC 1045 iii) Shyam Sunder and Ors Vs. Ram Kumar and Anr. AIR 2001 SC 2472 iv) Raminder Singh Sethi Vs. D. Vijayarangam, AIR 2002 SC 2087 v) Union of India Vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, AIR 1992 SC 96 vi) State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Jaspal Kaur [Appeal (civil) No. 409/2007 decided on 01.02.2007. vii) Mr. C. Gupta Vs. Galxosmithklin Pharmaceutical Ltd. [Appeal (Civil) No. 6543-44/2004 decided on 23.05.2007 a) In the case of P. Mahendran and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (supra) it has been held: ‘ that it is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statue or in the Rule showing the intention to affect the existing rights the Rule must be held to be prospective.’ b) In the case of The Land Acquisition officer-cum-DSWO Vs. M/s. B.V. Reddy and Sons (supra) it has been held that: ‘ it is well settled principle of construction that a substantive provision cannot be retrospective in nature unless the provision itself indicates the same.’ c) In the case of Shyam Sunder and Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar and Anr. (supra) it has been held that: ‘ there is no such rule of construction that a beneficial legislation is always retrospective in operation even though such legislation either expressly or by necessary intendment is not made retrospective.’ d) In the case of Raminder Singh Sethi