- (1.)THIS is a rule for a writ of certiorari against the industrial tribunal, Bombay, consisting of Mr. P. S. Bakhale in respect of an award made by the tribunal on 20 November, 1948. The petitioners are the Bombay Garage Limited. They commenced business as a limited company on 1 April, 1945 and took over the business of Messrs. F. M. Chinoy and Co. Ltd. , who are the proprietors of a concern known as the Bombay Garage. In July, 1946, certain disputes arose between the petitioners and their employees, and by a notification dated 20 March 1948 the provincial Government referred the dispute to the respondent. The demands of the workers were set out in annexure (A) to the said notification and the 3 relevant demands for the purpose of the present petition are as follows:
(3) Dearness allowance at the minimum rate of Rupees 1/8 per day should be paid to every workman with effect from 1 January, 1947. * * * (9) Gratuity at the rate of one month's salary for every completed year o service should be given after minimum of 10 years. (f) All the retrenched workmen should be paid gratuity as follows: (i) After 10 years of continuous, service 15 months' wages, (ii) After 5 years but less than 10 years continuous service 12 months' wages. (iii) Less than 5 year3 service 6. months' wages.

(2.)THE award under these heads is challenged as being without jurisdiction,
(3.)IN respect of the dearness allowance, the award is being challenged on the ground that the dearness allowance has been granted to the workers from 1 January, 1947, although the award was published on 28 November, 1948. It is contended by the petitioners that it is not competent to the respondent to award any dearness allowance for a period prior to the date of the award, in as much as under Section 19 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, an award is binding and remains in operation for such period not exceeding one year as may be fixed by the Provincial Government. The contention is that if a benefit is conferred on the workers by the award which related to some period prior to the date of the award, such benefit would accrue to the workers for a period in excess of the statutory period of one year. In my opinion, there is no substance whatever in this contention. The award comes into operation after a declaration by the provincial Government under Section 15 that it shall come into operation; but the benefits conferred by the award may well relate to any period prior to the award e. g. , it is quite obvious that in respect of claims or disputes relating to gratuity or bonus, it must of necessity relate to prior service. I have no doubt, therefore, the respondent had ample jurisdiction to confer any benefits on the workmen for a period prior to the award provided such disputes are referred to the respondent's adjudication, In the present case, dearness allowance as from 1 January, 1947, was specifically referred to the respondent; and in my opinion the respondent had jurisdiction to grant such dearness allowance. Were the law otherwise, it would lead to very startling results. A claim for dearness allowance must of necessity take some time before it is adjudicated upon and if the respondent had no jurisdiction to grant the claim as on the date when it was made, the workers would of necessity lose all their claim to dearness allowance prior to the date on which the award is made. In my opinion such is not the law. The first objection to the award, therefore, fails,