1 2025:HHC:44888 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 3056 of 2016 a/w CWP No. 504 of 2018 Date of decision: 19.12.2025. ________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 3056 of 2016 Nova Security Services Private Ltd. & another …..Petitioners Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 504 of 2018 Tata Global Beverages Ltd. …..Petitioners Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ CWP No. 3056 of 2016 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 For the Petitioner: Ms. Kaushikey, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 3 to 5. ________________________________________________________ CWP No. 504 of 2018 For the Respondents: Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate, for Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 3 to 5. Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) Prayer in these writ petitions is to declare Section 1 sub-Section (2) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, as amended by Payment of Bonus Amendment Act, 2015, (for short ‘the Act’) as invalid, void ab-initio 3 and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 2. The primary contention in these writ petitions is the retrospective nature of Notification dated 31.12.2015, as the said Act was amended which was to come into force right from 01.04.2014 and in Section 2 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 in clause (13) for the words “ten thousand rupees", the words "twenty-one thousand rupees” were substituted and in Section 12 of the Act, for the words “three thousand and five hundred rupees” at both the places where they occurred, the words “seven thousand rupees or the minimum wage for the scheduled employment, as fixed by the appropriate Government, whichever is higher" were substituted. 3. It is not disputed that the challenge as such was made in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15379 of 2017, titled as M/s Magadh Sugar & Cenergy Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, filed before the High 4 Court of Judicature at Patna which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 25.09.2025, wherein it was held that retrospective operation was only for one financial year and the beneficial, welfare legislation could not be termed to be unduly oppressive or confiscatory. 4. On the last date, we were informed that the High Court of Madras has also taken the similar view and the learned Counsel for the petitioners were asked to verify whether any SLP was filed against the aforesaid judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. 5. Today, we are informed that no such SLP has been filed against the aforesaid judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Madras. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that we do not find any plausible reason to take a different view. 5 6. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. December 19, 2025 (Satyen Vaidya) (hemlata) Judge.