( 1 ) THE short question which arises before us is whether the decision in NAGRI MILLS LTD. V. TEXTILE LABOUR ASSOCIATION AHMEDABAD 12 G. L. R. 417 which has unsettled the industrial law for a decade on this Question of limitation under sec. 79 (4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 hereinafter referred to as the Act in respect of continuing illegal change is correctly decided. The Textile Labour Association a representative union has come up in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the Industrial Court dated October 23 1974 dismissing the four applications which were filed by this representative union on behalf of the four concerned permanent watchmen working in the respondent mill company for a declaration of illegal change as being time-barred. The concerned watchmen were made permanent on April 10 1967 May 1 1968 August 1 1968 and May 1 1968 respectively and on the ground of the customary concession of amenity in the form of an allowance of Rs. 4=50 P per month in lieu of house rent with additional fuel and kerosene which had been denied to them from the date of their permanance the claim was made that the company had committed an illegal change. Within a month of their permanence the demand was made but the mill company did not pay them the value of these amenities month to month as they became due under the aforesaid industrial usage or customary concession and that is why these applications for an illegal change had been made before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the fact was undisputed that these employees were made permanent watchmen on the dates alleged. There was also no dispute that there was a customary practice of giving the alleged amenities to the permanent watchmen. The only plea taken was that these watchmen being fresh entrants who were made Permanent after the wage award reported in 1948 I. C. R. 147 there would be no illegal change if the said amenities were denied to these new entrants after the 1948 award. The Labour Court accepted this contention and held that this was not an existing right and the employees could not claim benefit of these amenities after the award of 1948. Accordingly these applications were dismissed by the order at Annexure A dated September 3g 1970 by the Labour Court. In appeal the Industrial Court however took up the question of limitation as it went to the root. The Industrial Court pointed out that the Full Bench of the Industrial Court had in its decision and even the Labour Appellate Tribunal had taken the view that there would be no such question of bar of limitation in such cases where there was a recurring illegal change for the period that was within the limitation but as the recent aforesaid decision in Nagri Mill s case had taken a contrary view these applications must be held to be time-barred. Accordingly the appeals having been disposed of the representative union has filed this petition.

( 2 ) BEFORE we go into the aforesaid question as to the correctness of the decision in Nagri Mills case at the outset we would consider the background of this litigation in the context of the relevant provisions of the Act. The entire history of this litigation even so far as this particular mill is concerned has been exhaustively referred to by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in the decision in SHRINAGAR MILLS CO. LTD. OTHER MILLS V. TEXTILE LABOUR ASSOCIATION AHMEDABAD 1951 (2) L. L J. 25. The Labour Appellate Tribunal pointed out that in the 1948 award which fixed standard wages for certain occupations and minimum basic wages for certain other occupations including this watch and ward department had been preceded by the assessors report. In the assessors report a recommendation had been made while fixing the standard wages for discontinuance of certain amenities. The members of the Labour Appellate Tribunal however pointed out that the assessors report was however not an award. The award was