2025:BHC-OS:24132-DB Digitally signed by PRASHANT PRASHANTVILAS VILAS RANE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY RANE Date:

2 1 0 8 2 :4 5 1 .1 :2 2 0 .09 +0530 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2024 OF 2016 TECH MAHINDRA LIMITED ...Petitioner VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.2161 OF 2016 ISS FACILITY SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD AND Ors. ...Petitioners VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ...Respondents _______

Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anindya Basarkod, Mr. C. Nageshwaran i/b. M/s. Khaitan & Co., for Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2024/2016.

Mr. Anil D. Yadav, for Respondent in WP 2024/16.

Mr. P. M. Palshikar with Mr. Anil D. Yadav & Mr. A. R. Gole, for Respondent in WP 2161/16.

_______

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 25 NOVEMBER 2025 P.C.

1. These are two petitions where the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners are similar and hence, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The challenge in these petitions is to the validity of Section 3 of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act,2015 ( No.6 of 2016) insofar as the provision uses word “or the minimum wage for the scheduled employment, as fixed by the appropriate Government, whichever is higher.” as inserted in Section 12 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The challenge is also in regard to the retrospective effect as given to the said provision for a period prior to 1 April 2015. The substantive prayers as made in the first petition (Writ Petition No.2024 of

2016) are required to be noted which read thus:

“a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that Section 3 of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 (No.6 of 2016) is illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires in so far as the words “or the Minimum Wage for the scheduled employment, as fixed by the appropriate Government, whichever is higher” have been inserted in Section 12 of the Bonus Act and the explanation, assigning the meaning of expression “scheduled employment” as assigned to it in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, has been inserted at the end of Section 12 of the Bonus Act vide Section 3 of the Bonus Amendment Act and to strike it down as such;

b.This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring that the Respondents shall not enforce the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the extent it operates retrospectively i.e. for any period prior to 1^st April, 2015 and discriminates between scheduled employments and non- scheduled employments since such retrospective operation and discrimination is ultra vires, arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 20(1) of the Constitution.

c. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue any appropriate writ declaring the retrospective operation (prior to 1^st April, 2015) of Payment of Bonus (Bonus Amendment Act), 2015 and also insertion of the words “or the minimum wage for the scheduled employment, as fixed by the appropriate Government, whichever is higher” in Section 12 of the Bonus Act vide Section 3 of the Bonus Amendment Act and insertion of explanation pertaining to the meaning of “scheduled employment” as assigned to in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as ultra vires, arbitrary and unconstitutional.”

3. We find from the record that the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 13 June 2016 in Writ Petition No.2024 of 2016, considering the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court, Allahabad High Court and other High Courts, granted stay to the retrospective application of the impugned provision. In this view of the matter, considering the legal position that the Act being a Central Act, by virtue of the stay granted by the said High Courts, observing that such orders of stay would operate throughout India, this Court also stayed the retrospective application of the Amendment Act and directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petit