Judgment

TULZAPURKAR, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal Maharastra, Bombay, dated September 22nd, 1977, in Reference (IT) No. 248 of 1975 in the industrial dispute between the respondent and the workmen employed by it and published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on November 3, 1977. Though the demands made by the workers Union and adjudication thereon by the Tribunal related to items like wage scale, dearness allowance, extra show allowance, gratuity, service conditions of non-permanent staff and retrospectivity, while granting special leave this Court confined the appeal to three points, namely, (i) retrospectively of the award, (ii) linkage of dearness allowance to some rational principle and (iii) construction of S. 4 (5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972, and leave was expressly refused in regard to the other grounds mentioned in the special leave petition. We. therefore. proceed to deal with the aforesaid three points on which arguments were advanced before us by counsel on either side.

2. It may be stated that prior to the impugned award the wages and gratuity of the workers were governed by the earlier award in Reference No. 1 of 1968 published on 3-7-1969 which was effective from 1-1-1967 while dearness allowance was governed by the award in Reference No. 440 of 1970 effective from 1-1-1970. Both these awards were duly terminated by notice and fresh demands for revision of wage scales, dearness allawance, etc. effective from 1-1-1974 were submitted by the Union to the Management on 15-4-1974. The Reference to the Tribunal was made on 10-7-1975 and by the impugned award the Tribunal granted the revision in wage scales and dearness allowance with effect from 1-1-1977. Counsel for the appellant Union contended that the Tribunal erred in not granting the revision with effect from 1-1-1974 as demanded and at any rate the same should have been granted from 10-7-1975 being the date of Reference, especially when the Tribunal found the financial capacity of the respondent very sound and admittedly there had been a steep rise in the cost of living index. He pointed out that the Tribunal while refusing to grant retrospective effect had erroneously observed that there will be "too much financial burden on the company" as, according to him, such additional burden could not have been more than Rs. 1,00,000/- or Rs. 1,20,000/- a year during the three years 1974, 1975 and 1976. In support of his contention counsel referred to three decisions of this Court namely, Wenger & Co. v. Their Workmen, (1963) 2 Lab Li 403; Bengal Chemica and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen. (1969) 1 Lab LJ 751 and Hydro (Engineers) (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1969) 1 Lab LJ 713.

3. It is difficult to accept this contention and interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in the matter which can be done only if it is shown to have been unreasonably exercised. Under S. 17A (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it is a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to decide having regard to the circumstances of each case from which date its award should come into operation and no general rule can be laid down as to the date from which the Tribunal should bring its award into force and this Court shall not interfere with the Tribunals order in that behalf unless substantial ground is made out showing unreasonable exercise on its part. Even the three decisions cited by the counsel clearly bring out the aforesaid position in law. The Tribunal was deciding the Reference in August, 1977 and though the additional burden may not have been more than Rs. 1,00,000/- or Rs. 1.20,000/- per year for the three years 1974. 1975 and 1976 if retrospective effect was given to the revision. no material was placed before the Tribunal by either party as to whether the profits earned by the Company for the said three years had been disbursed or were still available with the company at the time of making the