JUDGMENT : K.C. Das Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is against an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, in an industrial dispute between the appellant-company and their workmen in the West Chirimiri Colliery. Of the three matters referred to the Tribunal the award was in favour of the workmen in respect of two. The workmen's claim in the third matter as regards increase in wages was rejected and against that the workmen have not appealed. 2. In the present appeal we are concerned with only two matters in which the Tribunal made the award in favour of the workmen. These matters are: (1) Is any payment for load and lift due in respect of any period prior to October 10, 1954, in accordance with para 5 of the Notification of the late Government of Korea State dated November 15, 1957; and (2) are the miners entitled to extra wages for boring holes in accordance with Note I to item (i) of the aforesaid Notification of the late Government of Korea State and, if so, at what rate and from which date? The Notification on which the workmen based their claim was made on November 15,1957, by the Korea State Government. The preamble to the Notification after mentioning the fact that there has been a general rise in the price of essential commodities necessitating a positive policy to bring about an improvement in the conditions of workmen in the Coal Mine Industry and the further fact that the wages of colliery workers have been increased in the coal fields of Bihar, Bengal, Orissa and Central Provinces & Berar and these increases are bound to have repercussions in the coal fields of Korea State states that the Korea State Government after careful consideration of all factors affecting the industry in the State and in order to assure minimum wages to coal workers was hereby ordering as follows: The Order contains 11 clauses of which the last viz. the llth clause provides for the retrospective operation of the Order from November 1, 1947. The first clause provides for minimum basic wages for coal cutters and certain other classes of workmen. Note 1 of the clause provides that the holes required for drilling are to be paid separately. the llth clause provides for the retrospective operation of the Order from November 1, 1947. The first clause provides for minimum basic wages for coal cutters and certain other classes of workmen. Note 1 of the clause provides that the holes required for drilling are to be paid separately. The fifth clause of the order provides for payment of load and lift and mentions the basic wages to be paid for load and lift. It appears that extra wages for load have been paid to the workmen from October 10, 1954. The present claim of the workmen is for such payment for load for the prior period from the date from which the Mines started working up to October 10, 1954. The claim for lift does not appear to have been pressed and it does not fall for our consideration. Extra wages for boring holes was claimed at the rate of one anna per foot from when the work in the colliery started. The company challenged the constitutional validity of the Notification and further pleaded that even if it was valid it did not apply to this company which was not engaged in mining operations on the date of the notification. On the merits it further contended that there was no load in the colliery prior to October 10, 1954, and so the question of payment of any load did not arise. As regards the claim for boring holes the company's case was that no extra payment is allowable because of the peculiar method of boring holes of this colliery. The company further stated that in any case as no claim for load had been made prior to October 10, 1954, the workmen were not entitled to any payment for load prior to October 10, 1954, from which date load is being paid. 3. The Tribunal held that the Notification was valid and binding on this company and held on the evidence on record that there was load in the colliery even prior to October 10, 1954, and ordered payment for load to loaders who were engaged in company's service from January 1, 1952, to October 9, 1954, taking the average load to be from 50 to 100 ft. It indicated how the amount would be worked out from the total tonnage of coal every month. It indicated how the amount would be worked out from the total tonnage of coal every month. As regards the clause for extra wages for boring holes it held that the miners were entitled to payment of extra basic wages at the rate of 3 annas per hole for the period between 1950 to October 10, 1954, and additional wage at the rate of -/1/9 annas per hole for the period October 10, 1954, to May 26, 1956, as during this period the company paid ? per hole. 4. Five points were raised before us in appeal: (1) that the notification of the Korea Government had no statutory force being only in the nature of the award between the parties in dispute; (2) that even as a statute it was invalid and that assuming it had any validity at the time it was made it had ceased to have any force when the Korea State became merged in the Eastern Status Union and thereafter into Madhya Pradesh; (3) that in any case the statute operated only against the employers who were engaged in coal mining at the time of the notification and so not against the present appellant who started coal mining long after that date; (4) that the findings on the merits of the claim were not based on any legal evidence; and (5) in any case no relief should be given before the date of demand. 5. The second point mentioned above was ultimately abandoned by the learned Additional Solicitor General who appeared before us on behalf of the appellant. There is in our opinion no substance in the first or the third ground. 6. The contention that the notification was an award is on the face of it unsound. The notification was an order made by the Korea State Government as regards wages and certain other matters for workers in coal mines, in view of the circumstances prevailing, mainly as regards the rise in price of commodities and the repercussions anticipated from the rise in wages in the coal fields of Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and Central Provinces and Berar. There was no question here of any dispute between two or more parties being decided. The Korea State Government was competent to make laws in that State and the notification was clearly issued in the exercise of that legislative power. There was no question here of any dispute between two or more parties being decided. The Korea State Government was competent to make laws in that State and the notification was clearly issued in the exercise of that legislative power. It is equally clear that this law was made not for regulating the wages of the persons engaged in the coal mining industry on that date only but was intended to be a law for all time to come until abrogated or modified by later valid legislation. It is nobody's case that this law has been modified or abrogated. 7. On the merits the Tribunal appears to have considered carefully the oral and documentary evidence on the record and has on that basis arrived at the conclusion which has been mentioned above. The main complaint of the learned counsel was against the Tribunal's view that Rule 17 of the Payment of Wages (Coal Mines) Rules, 1949, requires the management to maintain full records of all measurements in respect of load, however little it might have been, and in that view drawing an adverse conclusion against the management for their not having maintained such record. It is sufficient to state that we have considered this Rule and see no reason to disagree with the construction put on it by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was fully justified in making an adverse conclusion against the company from the fact that these measurements were not recorded. The Tribunal has clearly indicated in the award the evidence on which it based its conclusion and we see no justification in interfering with its conclusions thereon. 8. This brings us to the question whether the Tribunal is right in allowing payment for extra wages for load from January 1, 1952, to October 9, 1954, and for extra wages for drilling holes from the beginning of 1950. It is not disputed before us that no claim for extra wages for load under clause 5 of the award was made prior to October 10, 1954, and as regards extra wages for boring holes, before February, 1953. It is not disputed before us that no claim for extra wages for load under clause 5 of the award was made prior to October 10, 1954, and as regards extra wages for boring holes, before February, 1953. It is urged, however, on behalf of the workmen that once it is found, as the Tribunal has found, that the employer was in law liable to pay extra wages for load from January 1, 1952, and extra wages for drilling holes from October, 1950, the fact that the demand was made much later does not affect the employer's liability. It is true that laws of limitation which might bar any civil court from giving remedy in respect of lawful rights are not and should not be applied by the Industrial Tribunals. On the other hand it is a well accepted principle of industrial adjudication that over-stale claims should not generally be encouraged or allowed, unless there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after a long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect this is likely to have on the employer's financial arrangements. Whether a claim has become too stale or not will depend on the circumstances of each case. In Jhargrakhand Collieries Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (1960) LLJ 71, where a claim for extra wages under clause 2 of this very Korea award came up for consideration this Court held that it would not be fair or just to allow the workmen the benefit of an increase directed by the award even prior to the date of the demand. A similar view was taken in this Court's judgment in United Collieries Ltd. v. Workmen, Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1960. While these cases do not lay down an absolute proposition as suggested on behalf of the respondent that relief can in no case be granted for a period prior to the demand they do strongly support the proposition that in deciding on the date from which the relief should be given the Industrial Tribunal ought to pay particular attention to the date when the demand was first made. Taking into account the dates of demand in the present case, along with the other circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in ordering the grant of extra wages for load with effect from January 1, 1952, and for boring holes with effect from 1950. On a consideration of all the circumstances of the case we have come to the conclusion that both these reliefs should be granted with effect from January, 1953. Mr Sanyal has fairly conceded that this would be a fair and just order to make. 9. We, therefore, allow the appeal in part, and modify the Tribunal's award as indicated above. Parties will bear their own costs.