32 Judgment No. CCZ 2/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 86/15 differently can it be alleged that the right to equal protection of the law has been violated. That was not the position in the present case. The applicants were treated differently from the employees whose contracts they terminated on notice because of the consequences of their actions of terminating the employees’ contracts on notice without paying them compensation for loss of employment. The right to terminate employees’ contracts on notice exercised on or after 17 July 2015 was retained by the retrospective application of the legislation imposing the new financial obligation on the employers who terminated employees’ contracts on notice. It became a statutory right, exercisable where it has been specifically provided for in the situations prescribed under s 12(4a) of the Act. The retrospective application of the law ensured that both parties were treated fairly, in that whilst allowing the employer and employee to terminate the employment relationship on notice there was a balanced distribution of the benefits and burdens resulting from the termination of employment at the initiative of the employer. The Court has to view the effect of retrospective application of s 12 of the Act holistically, taking into account all the relevant circumstances that faced the Legislature at the time it enacted the legislation. The applicants were treated in the same manner for the purposes of the retrospective application of the statute as all the employers who terminated employees’ contracts on notice on the authority of the Zuva Petroleum judgment. In the Chiranjitlal Chowdhury case supra the Supreme Court of India held that if a law deals equally with all of a certain well-defined class it is not obnoxious. The law is not open to the charge of a denial of equal protection on the ground that