P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.) This is an industrial dispute between the Rifle Factory Co-operative Society Ltd. and its workmen. The petitioner applied for and obtained a Rule nisi on 25-1-1956 for a writ in the nature of mandamus or prohibition and certiorari directed against an award of the Fourth Industrial Tribunal purported to have been made under Section 20 (2) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act. An interim order was obtained on that day staying all further proceedings and the Rule was fixed for hearing on 22-2-1956. It has taken all this time to come up for disposal.
(2.) The facts may be briefly set out before discussing the points involved in the application. By an order dated 30-8-1952, the Government referred to the Fourth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication amongst others the dispute which was described as, "Issue No. 2", in the order of reference in the following terms : "Whether the graded scale of pay of all categories of employees now in force should be revised: what should be the fair scales of pay of the employees." The Award was made on 18-9-1953. The material portion of the Award relevant for the purpose of determining this application is as follows : "I, therefore, award that the recommendations of the Sub-Committee will be implemented with effect from 1-4-49, so far as the stores are concerned as recommended by the Sub-Committee so far as the scale of pay is concerned as also the question of fitting in of the employees." Linguistically and grammatically, this particular part of the award is open to criticism. The controversy naturally arose whether the Award was prospective or retrospective. The words, "with effect from 1-4-49", inspired the argument that the Award was retrospective although it was made on 18-9-1953. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the Award was not retrospective and those controversial words, "with effect from 1-4-49", only meant that the rates that were prevailing on 1-4-49 and which were recommended by the Sub-Committee would be the rates applicable as the graded and fair scale of pay of the employees of the petitioner under Issue No. 2 which I have quoted above from the terms of reference. Before deciding this point, which is the only point before me, I should like to complete the statement of facts.
(3.) This Award was published on 13-10-1953 and became operative on or about 13-11-1953. The petitioner offered to the workmen concerned increased wages on the basis of the Award but the workmen did not accept such wages till November 1954, while accepting the same from December 1954. There was an appeal by the petitioner before the Labour Appellate Tribunal but being out of time, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation on 15-11- 1954, In June 1955, the workmen made applications to the Joint Secretary, Government Labour Department, under Section 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, for the recovery of their arrears of wages contending that they were entitled to higher wages retrospectively from 1-4-49 under the Award. These applications were made under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act because all these applications calculated the specific sum of money alleged to be due to each of the workmen under the Award, with the particular prayer that the specified sum of money stated in each petition be realised by Certificate arrears of Land Revenue as provided under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act. The petitioner disputed the claim before the Government and denied that the workmen were entitled to claim higher wages from 1-4-49.;