AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) BY making this writ petition the calcutta port trust authority challenged an award passed by the regional labour commissioner (central), and arbitrator dated december 29, 1988. The two issues were there before the arbitrator which are as follows:i) whether upward revision by 20% of the amount of rs. 34. 00 paid to 'a' category workers on roll as on september 1, 1979 for the purpose of revision of equation allowance w. e. f. january 1, 1980 is justified? If so, whether the coal trimmers who also got equation. Allowance be eligible for any such revision? (II) whether the amount of rs. 34. 00 per month paid to the 'a' category workers in terms of clause 2 of the tripartite settlement dated september 15, 1979 should be admissible to 'a' category workers recruited after september 1, 1979. In the context of the labour advisor and industrial relations officer, calcutta port trust's letter no. Id-viii/112a/1591 dated october 31, 1980" ( 2 ) NEITHER of the parties have filed their respective affidavits. Union of india has already given effect and following such effect the port trust authority is giving the benefit prospectively from the date of the award which has culminated to the settlement subsequently under which it would be given from february 4, 1989. Therefore the matter is rested therein. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the port trust authority, the petitioner herein, submitted that the order should have been made prospectively but not retrospectively with effect from january 1, 1980 by holding the same to avoid future anomaly in the wage pattern of 'a' category workers which is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Arbitrator can give only the prospective effect but not the retrospective effect unless the situation so eermits on the basis of the references made efore him. It is further to be noted hereunder that fixation of equation allowance in respect of some of the workers similar to the other who has obtained, is a matter of policy. Therefore the decision as given by the arbitrator dated december 29, 1988 cannot in any manner be given retrospective effect before the policy framed is accepted. Moreover the matters were brought before the appropriate authority or the arbitrator by way of industrial dispute in the year 1986. Therefore the decision as given by the arbitrator dated december 29, 1988 cannot in any manner be given retrospective effect before the policy framed is accepted. Moreover the matters were brought before the appropriate authority or the arbitrator by way of industrial dispute in the year 1986. Under such circumstances, giving retrospective effect from september 1, 1980 will exceed the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and therefore the same is not permissible. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel in support of the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the supreme court of india national projects construction corporation ltd. V. Their workmen, air 1976 sc 283 : 1976 (1) scc 230 : 1976-i-llj-86 wherein question of pay scales of muster roll workmen was decided as a result of the settlement and that was not one of the questions referred to the arbitrator. It was held therein that the industrial tribunal was therefore, acting beyond its jurisdiction in allowing a 25% increase of the wages of the muster-roll workmen. The only reason the industrial tribunal had given for holding the same is that the wages of the muster roll 187 workmen was also a matter referred to it. The point under reference by itself does not exclude muster roll workmen and that it clearly maintains that the parties had agreed that the demands regarding revision of pay scale etc. Of the workman should be referred to arbitration and no exception has been made against the muster- roll workmen. Therefore by such reason a reference cannot be exceeded by increase of wages upto 25%. ( 5 ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances following the ratio of the supreme court judgment this court has to hold that the eligibility equation allowance of the coal trimmers which was referred before the tribunal is not beyond the jurisdiction but giving effect of it retrospectively is beyond the scope of reference. Thus, i allow the writ petition accordingly. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, no order is passed as to costs. ( 7 ) RULE is modified and made absolute to the extent of clarification as given hereinabove. ( 8 ) LET xerox certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties by the department within seven days from the date of putting in the requisition for drawing up and completion of the order as well as the certified copy thereof. ( 8 ) LET xerox certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties by the department within seven days from the date of putting in the requisition for drawing up and completion of the order as well as the certified copy thereof. ( 9 ) ALL parties are to act on a signed copy minutes of the operative part of this judgment upon usual undertaking and as per the satisfaction of the officer of this court in respect as above.