Judgment :- 1. The main contention of the petitioners it that the 2nd petitioner and a number of others, who like him are members of the Travancore Mineral Workers' Union, Chavara, of which the 1st petitioner is the Vice President, are entitled to re-employment in the Travancore Minerals Concerns, Chavara, as and when vacancies occur in that establishment. According to them the 2nd petitioner and a number of other workmen were retrenched during the period 1943-1949 and S.25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: "Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen to offer themselves for re-employment, and the retrenched workmen who offer themselves of re-employment shall have preference over other persons". ................support their claim for re-employment. 2. The Travancore Minerals Concerns is an industrial establishment owned and worked at present by the Government of Travancore-Cochin and the immediate provocation for the petition is the order of the Government directing that all future recruitment should be made exclusively through the medium of the Employment Exchange, Trivandrum. On 1.7.1954 they had ordered. "that all fresh appointments in the T.M.C. to posts carrying a basic pay below Rs. 75/- inclusive of unskilled labour, will be made only through the Employment Exchange, Trivandrum". and on the 28th July 1954. "The recent decision of Government that recruitment to T.M.C. will hereafter be through the Employment Exchange will be reconsidered. A list of the former minerals workers will be prepared according to their length of service and recruitment will hereafter be from this list according to service". In their order of the 1st June 1955, the order impugned in the petition, they said: "Government have re-examined the question in all its aspects and are satisfied that the orders issued in Government Proceedings (dated the 7th July 1954) read as first paper above viz., that all fresh appointments in the T.M.C. to posts carrying a basic pay below Rs. 75/- per mensem inclusive of unskilled labour will be made exclusively through the Employment Exchange, Trivandrum, needs no modification". 3. S.25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was introduced by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953, which replaced the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Ordinance, 1953. 75/- per mensem inclusive of unskilled labour will be made exclusively through the Employment Exchange, Trivandrum, needs no modification". 3. S.25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was introduced by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953, which replaced the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Ordinance, 1953. The Ordinance was promulgated on the 24th October 1953 and S.1(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953, provides that the Amending Act, "shall be deemed to have come into force on the 24th day of October 1953". It is clear from the said sub-section that the only retroactive operation given to the amending statute is to the 24th October 1953 and it cannot possibly affect cases of retrenchment beyond that date. The retrenchment in this case is alleged, as already stated, to have occurred not on or after the 24th October 1953 but between the years 1943 and 1949. 4. Mr. Madhavan Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted at the close of the hearing that if I came to the conclusion that S.25H had no retroactive operation beyond the 24th October 1953, I may take the petition as not pressed by his clients. I have come to that conclusion and this petition has hence to be dismissed. 5. 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 1953 and not to any point of time anterior to that date. 6. Mr. Madhavan Nair's contention that an amending Act when enacted becomes part of the original statute and should hence be deemed as having come into force on the date the original enactment itself came into force would appear to have had some support once upon a time but is certainly not a part of any current canon of construction. As stated in Benton v. Wickwire (54 N.Y. 226, 229). As stated in Benton v. Wickwire (54 N.Y. 226, 229). "There was once, and long ago, a rule in the construction of statutes, that an amendment of it was to be regarded as if having been incorporated in and made a part of the original enactment, but that rule has been for a long time disregarded, and it is now settled that an amendment has no more retroactive effect that an original act upon the same subject. Neither original statutes nor amendments can have any retroactive force unless in exceptional cases the legislature so declare". 7. There can be no doubt that the proper forum for the adjudication of the petitioner's contentions is an Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners seemed to think that no reference will be made to such a Tribunal because of the power and prestige of the Government of Travancore-Cochin. I have seen so much of the agony of retrenchment and the years of nakedness and frustration that follow in its wake that I cannot leave this case except in the sure belief that future proceedings will soon belie the petitioner's apprehensions and that they will get a chance to ventilate their grievances before an appropriate Tribunal. 8. The petition is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. Dismissed.