JUDGMENT B.M. Lal, C.J. - This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order dated 8th September, 1989, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 747 of 1988 (R) contending that the learned Writ Court has committed an error of law in construing the amended provisions of Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986, which came into force from 1st day of May, 1973, and that substitution of a statute by an amending provision is an amendment to the original statute taking away the right and privilege acquired under the original provisions of Section 14 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, that is to say, it does not confer any right or privilege upon the workmen. 2. The short facts leading to this appeal are as under: The workmen, namely, Bishundeo Singh, Attendance Clerk, Bachu Singh, Night-guard, Kanhaiya Prasad Karan, Attendance Clerk, and A.K. Das, Munshi, are said to be permanent workmen of Ramkanali Colliery, Dhanbad. It is stated that they were stopped from work by the management of the said colliery with effect from 31.1.1973 in the case of first two workmen and from 5.2.1973 in the case of the latter two workmen. 3. Unsuccessfully, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad, took the matter including conciliation proceeding with the management. Thereafter a reference was made for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of Section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The learned Tribunal by its award dated 29th July, 1987, (Annexure 4 to the writ application) while dealing with the case of the respective parties has reached the conclusion that it is the management respondent which had concealed/suppressed to produce the relevant documents which were in their possession with ulterior motive to caver up their lapses far stopping the workmen from their duties without assigning any reason and in view of this findings the Tribunal arrived at a decision that stopping of the workmen from their duty is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. In respect of the amendment in the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, by Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986 which came into farce with effect from 1st May, 1973, the Tribunal held that the substituted provisions of Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986, shall be deemed to have came into force with effect from 7th October, 1986. On this legal position the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the provision regarding giving employment to the workmen was in farce till prior to 7.10.86 and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 14 of the Coal Mines Natianalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986, shall be deemed to have came into force with effect from 7th October, 1986. On this legal position the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the provision regarding giving employment to the workmen was in farce till prior to 7.10.86 and, therefore, the provisions of Section 14 of the Coal Mines (Natianalisatian) Act, 1973, was available to the workmen at the time when they had raised the dispute and the delay in the disposal of the dispute, which is not on account of fault of the workmen, can not deprive them from taking advantage which was available to them at the relevant time. Therefore, benefit of Section 14 of Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, was extended to the workmen by directing their reinstatement and back wages. 5. However, in the writ petition the learned Writ Court by reversing the award reached the conclusion that the substitution made by the provisions of Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986 is also an amendment to the original provisions of Section 14 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, and, as such, it is held that the above substitution amounts to amendment to original provisions of Section 14 by virtue of introducing it by Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986, and so the same came into force with effect from 1st May, 1973, and, as such, no benefit can be extended to the workmen who were not under the employment of respondent on 1.5.1973. On this reasoning the award passed by the Tribunal was set aside. 6. Now a question arises for our decision in this appeal : Whether the workmen are entitled for reinstatement even if assuming that original provision of Section 14 of Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, is substituted or amended by virtue of Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986 with effect from 1st May, 1973." 7. For the brevity sake it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Sections 14 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, as well as Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986. Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. 14. For the brevity sake it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Sections 14 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, as well as Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986. Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. 14. Employment of certain employees to continue. - (1) Every person who is a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), and has been immediately before the appointed day, in the employment of a coal mine shall become on and from the appointed day, an employee of the Central Government or, as the case may be, of the Government Company, in which the right, title and interest of such mine have vested under this Act, and shall hold office or service in the coal mine with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if the rights in relation to such coal mine had not been transferred to, and vested in, the Central Government or the Government company, as the case may be, and continue to do so unless and until his employment in such coal mine is duly terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment are duly altered by the Central Government or the Government Company. 2. xx xx 3. xx xx 4. xx xx 5. xx xx The Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986 14. Liability of officer or other employee of a coal mine for transfer to any other coal mine. -- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or in any other law for the time being in force, the services of any officer or other employee employed in a coal mine shall be liable to be transferred to any other coal mine and such transfer shall not entitle such officer or other employee to any compensation under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and no such claim shall be entertained by any court, tribunal or other authority. 8. 8. A bare reading of Section 14 of Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, ex facie demonstrates that this special provision deals about the workmen and their continuance in service with the taken over organisation i.e. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. or with the Central Government as the case may be, and it is a statutory protection for the workmen and is in express term being explicit and imperative in nature. Thus this provision of Section 14 is to be read in conjunction with Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defines - "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrehchement has led to that. 9. The provisions of Section 14 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, which reads......" and has been immediately before the appointed day, in the employment of a coal mine shall become on and from the appointed day, an employee of the Central Government or, as the case may, of the Government company, in which the right, title and interest of such mine have vested under this Act." if read together with the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as quoted above, it is amply clear that since a dispute with regard to stopping from work of the workmen was pending at the relevant time, by deeming fiction of law the workmen shall be treated to be the workmen of the Colliery in question. This legal position has no two opinion. Besides, statutory continuity of service by virtue of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can not be breached by wrongful dismissal of the employer (sic-- employee?) taking the aid of the amended provisions of Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986. 10. This legal position has no two opinion. Besides, statutory continuity of service by virtue of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can not be breached by wrongful dismissal of the employer (sic-- employee?) taking the aid of the amended provisions of Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986. 10. In this regard it is needless to say that the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 (Act, 15 of 1973) came into force with effect from 30.1.73 and by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of this Act the coal mines specified in the schedule shall be deemed to be coal mines, the management of which shall vest, under sub-section (1), in the Central Government. Thus even if the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986, (No. 57 of 1986) came into force either with effect from 7th October, 1986, or with effect from 1st day of May, 1973, taking it as a case either of amendment or substitution, by virtue of Section 3 of the Coal Mines (Taking Over Management) Act, 1973, the management of the coal mine not only by deeming fiction but in express terms vested with the Central Government with effect from 30.1.1973 creating a relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workmen. 11. The provisions of Section 14 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, as was appearing in Chapter V, referred to above, stands substituted by Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986 which came into force with effect from 1.5.1973. Thus, if the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, is amended/ substituted/ repealed and if the amendment/substitution/repeal is with effect from 1.5.73 i.e. with retrospective effect then a question arises as to what will be the effect of unamended provisions of Section 14 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 as it stood then particularly between the period from 1.5.73 to 7.10.86. 12. In this regard we may point out that while amending a provision until and unless it is expressly provided or it is made clear that the amendment will not only be retrospective but the rights and privileges which accrued in between the period of original provision till it is amended are taken away, the same shall be preserved and the rights, privileges, obligations, liabilities - acquired or incurred can not be taken away. Thus by virtue of Section 14 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, the rights and privileges accrued upon the workmen are saved by virtue of clause (c) of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, and the rights which are vested can not be divested as discussed above. In this regard it is useful to give reference to the case of Director of Public Works Vs. Ho Po Sang. : (1961) 2 All ER 721 (PC) at page 731 and in the case of Bansidhar Vs. State of Rajasthan: AIR 1989 S.C., 1614 at page 1621. 13. At this place we may also clarify that legal position is that if procedural law is repealed, amended or substituted, no suitor has any vested interest in the course of proceeding nor any right to complain if during the litigation the procedure is changed, provided of course that the same is not oppressive causing injustice. But where the statute, which is of substantive nature and by virtue of which some rights and privileges are vested, if the same is repealed, substituted or amended, the rights or privileges so vested can not be divested by virtue of amendment, repeal or substitution save where specific provision in this regard is made in express term. No such provision is brought to our notice. Thus the writ Court, in our considered opinion, has committed an error of law in holding that since the amended provision came into force with effect from 1.5.73 therefore, the workmen will not get any advantage of the original provisions of section 14 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 and sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, do not permit the employer to bear the liability on the other hand the vesting of coal mines should be 'free from all encumbrances' and, therefore, the respondent-employer is not liable to bear the liability of the award. In this regard it is to be mentioned that the workmen of the coal mine whose employment has been terminated, process of which is illegal and which termination is non-est in law, continue at the relevant time to be workmen on the appointed day by virtue of the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus the benefit of Section 14 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, can not be denied to them notwithstanding the prohibition contained in sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the said Act, which has no application. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent laid much emphasis time and again to the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, contending that on the appointed day the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coal mines specified in the schedule shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in, the Central Government "free from all encumbrances". Thus, it is contended that "free from all encumbrances" means "free from each and every burden and liability" which runs with the property of the taken over mines and, therefore, the case of a dismissed employee/workmen or retrenched workmen may be construed to be a burden covering it within the purview of the words "encumbrances" and "liability" as per the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. 16. Therefore, a question arises as to whether a workman is a liablity on the management so as to attract the words "encumbrances" and "liability" and thereby to atract the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. 17. Here it will not be out of place to mention that labour class as a whole is the back-bone of a company or industry or coal mine in the instant case by whose toil an industry or a company or coal mine flourish and go ahead with the production and the management amasses good fortune. Can a machinery in operation (workable machinery) used in an industry or coal mine be termed as a 'liability'? and, if that is not so then how an operator of the machinery (workman) without whom the machinery. Can a machinery in operation (workable machinery) used in an industry or coal mine be termed as a 'liability'? and, if that is not so then how an operator of the machinery (workman) without whom the machinery. becomes completely idle and junked be termed as a 'liability', A machinery and an operator (workman) are synonymous to each other without whose active participation an industry or machinery can not function and come to a stand-still position. It is indeed unheard of that for running a profitable industry or company the workmen are liability. Thus, if the contention of the learned counsel in this regard is accepted it will make havoc in the industrial world. Besides this, had it been the intention of the legislature while enacting the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, the provisions of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would not have been made applicable to the provisions of Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. This is what has been reiterated in the case of The Workmen v. The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others: 1978 Lab. I.C. 709 by the Apex Court that employees are not a liability (as yet in our country). As such, in our considered opinion, provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, have no application in construing the workmen or employees as "liability" or "encumbrances" upon a company or industry. 18. In view of foregoing discussions, the reasonings given by the learned Writ Court can not be allowed to stand. Consequently the impugned order dated 8th September, 1989, passed by the learned Writ Court is quashed maintaining the order/award of the learned Industrial Tribunal dated 29th July, 1987 (Annexure 4 to the writ applications). 19. By order dated 19.12.1988 passed in the writ petition, certain amount was directed to be deposited in fixed terms deposit by the employer towards the back wages of the workmen under the impugned award and on further undertaking by the employer to pay to the workmen concerned the amount of full wages last drawn by them in terms of Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1977, the operation of the award was stayed. 20. 20. Since back wages have already been directed to be deposited in fixed term deposit in a nationalised bank, we hope and trust that the respondent being a company of repute must have complied with the order passed by this Court on 19.12.1988. Thus there appears to be no need to pass any fresh order towards the payment of back wages. However, as the appeal is being allowed maintaining the order of the Tribunal, therefore. the term deposit amount as directed by the Writ Court vide order dated 19.12.88 now shall be paid to the concerned workmen along with interest accrued thereon in terms of the directions as given in the award. However, it is made clear that if the concerned workmen have not yet reached the age of superannuation they may be reinstated in service on the post on which they were working at the relevant time. 21. With the above directions, the impugned order dated 8th September, 1989, passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appeal is thus allowed with cost. Counsel fee Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) if certified. I agree.