37 Judgment No. CCZ 2/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 86/15 The interest in the retrospective application of the principle of payment of what was due to each employee whose contract was terminated on notice in the form of compensation for loss of employment according to his or her length of service was the vindication of fairness and justice the employers ought to have observed in terminating employees’ contracts on notice. Ultimately the question for determination is whether the retrospective imposition of the financial obligation on employers who terminated employees’ contracts on notice without payment of compensation for loss of employment based on length of service was an unfair or irrational exercise of legislative power. Consideration of all the circumstances of the case shows that it was not. A system that allows an employer to just wake up one bad day and decide for undisclosed reasons to terminate a contract of employment by giving notice of intention to do so without any regard to the need to compensate the employee for loss of employment is fundamentally unfair. Without retrospective effect, the achievement of the legislative purpose would have been affected to a significant degree. Not giving retrospective effect to the legislation would have defeated the legislative purpose. Reasonable exercise of legislative powers of the State cannot be hampered by pre-enactment occurrences. The applicants failed to show that their rights enshrined in s 56(1) of the Constitution were violated by the retrospective application of s 12C(2) of the Act. There was no violation of the equal protection of the right to terminate a contract of employment on notice enjoyed by the employer and employee as parties to the contract of employment. By its very nature, the financial obligation imposed on the employer to pay the