JUDGMENT : S.A. Bobde, J. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties 2. This is a petition by a recognised representative Trade Union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, for the local area of Amravati Taluq in which the respondent No. 3 Mill is located. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay to the employees of the respondent No. 3 Mill the difference of dearness allowance, between the amount actually paid to the workers and the amount to which they are entitled under the "Mangalmurti Award" from January 29, 1975 till February, 1990 (hereinafter referred as relief period), which was the period during which the respondent No. 3 Mill was under relief employment under the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for short). 3. In short, the petitioner Union claims that during the period when the respondent No. 3 Mill continued as a relief undertaking under the Act, its liability to pay dearness allowance was suspended by virtue of the provisions of the Act. That suspension having been lifted at the end of the period of 15 years, the liability to pay dearness allowance has become enforceable against them. Hence they pray for a direction to that effect. The facts are that the respondent No. 3 Mill was declared as a relief undertaking by the State of Maharashtra under the provisions of Section 3 and Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, by a notification dated January 28, 1975. Thereafter, it was continued as a measure of employment relief. This period which may be called the relief period, continued for the maximum period of 15 years till February, 1990 when it ceased to be a relief undertaking. 4. Since before it was declared as a relief undertaking, the respondent No. 3 Mill was liable under a award known as "Mangalmurti Award" passed under the provisions of C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 to pay dearness allowance to its employees. There is no dispute about the liability or its origin. After the respondent No. 3 was declared as a relief undertaking, the respondent No. 3 unilaterally reduced the amount of dearness allowance paid under the Mangalmurti Award from about Rs. 30/- per day to Rs. 3.25 ps., per day. The dearness allowance payable during the relief period, is the issue before us. 5. After the respondent No. 3 was declared as a relief undertaking, the respondent No. 3 unilaterally reduced the amount of dearness allowance paid under the Mangalmurti Award from about Rs. 30/- per day to Rs. 3.25 ps., per day. The dearness allowance payable during the relief period, is the issue before us. 5. In order to examine the petitioners claim, it would be necessary to examine the provisions of the Act and their impact on the respondents liability during and after the relief period. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, read as under: 3(1) If at any time it appears to the State Government necessary to do so, the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, declare that an industrial undertaking specified in the notification, whether started, acquired or otherwise taken over by the State Government, and carried on or proposed to be carried on by itself or under its authority (or to which any loan, guarantee or other financial assistance has been provided by the State Government), shall with effect from the date specified for the purpose in the notification, (be conducted) to serve as a measure (of preventing unemployment or) or unemployment relief and the undertaking shall accordingly be deemed to be a relief undertaking for the purpose of this Act. (2) A notification under Sub-section (1) shall have effect for such period not exceeding 5 twelve months as may be specified in the notification; but it shall be renewable by like notifications from time to time for further periods not exceeding (twelve months) at a time, so however, that all the periods in the aggregate do not exceed (fifteen years). (2) A notification under Sub-section (1) shall have effect for such period not exceeding 5 twelve months as may be specified in the notification; but it shall be renewable by like notifications from time to time for further periods not exceeding (twelve months) at a time, so however, that all the periods in the aggregate do not exceed (fifteen years). 4(1) Notwithstanding any law, usage, custom, contract, instrument, decree, order, award, submission, settlement, standing order or other provision whatsoever, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that (a) in relation to any relief undertaking and in respect of the period for which the relief undertaking continues as such under Sub-section (2) of Section 3(i) all or any of the laws in the Schedule to this Act or any provisions thereof shall not apply (and such relief undertaking shall be exempt therefrom),-or, shall, if so directed by the State Government, be applied with such modifications (which do not however affect the policy of the said laws) as may be specified in the notification; (ii) all or any of the agreements, settlements, awards or standing orders may under any of the laws in the Schedule to this Act, which may be applicable to the undertaking immediately before it was acquired or taken over by the State Government (or before any loan, guarantee or other financial assistance was provided to it by, or with the approval of, the State Government) for being run as a relief undertaking, shall be suspended in operation or shall, if so directed by the State Government, be applied with such modifications as may be specified in the notification; (iii) rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities shall be determined and be enforceable in accordance with Clauses (i) and (ii) and the notification; (iv) any right, privileges, obligation or liability accrued or incurred before the undertaking was declared a relief undertaking and any remedy for the enforcement thereof shall be suspended and all proceedings relative thereto pending before any Court, Tribunal, officer or authority shall be stayed; (b) the right, privilege, obligation or liability referred to in Clause (a)(iv) shall, on the notification ceasing to have force, revive and be enforceable and the proceedings referred to therein shall be continued: Provided that in computing the period of limitation for the enforcement of such right, privilege, obligation or liability, the period during which it was suspended under Clause (a)(iv) shall be excluded notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force. (2) A notification under Sub-section (1) shall have effect for such date, not being earlier than the date referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 3, as may be specified therein, and the provisions of Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, shall apply to the power to issue such notification. 6. The Scheme of the Act is that, the State Government is entitled to issue a notification in the official gazette and declare the specified Industrial undertaking as a relief undertaking. The undertaking thereupon is liable to be conducted to serve as a measure of creating employment or for unemployment relief. The notifications are to be for a period not exceeding 12 months, but renewable from time to time for like periods, however that the periods in aggregate do not exceed 15 years. 7. The effect of such a declaration of industrial undertaking as a relief undertaking is provided by Section 4, which inter alia contemplates: (a) That the undertaking shall be exempted, from the laws referred to therein. (b) The awards, settlements made under the Laws referred in the Schedule may be suspended, if so directed by the State Government or, be applied with such' modification as may be directed and specified in the notification. (c) The notification shall have the effect of suspending any right, privilege, obligation or liability and staying any remedy for its enforcement of proceedings related thereto pending before any Court, Tribunal, Officer or Authority. (d) The removal of the suspension is contemplated by Section 4 itself, which states that such right, privilege, obligation or liability shall revive and become enforceable on the notification ceasing to have force. 8. In the present case, the notification came into force on January 28,1975 and ceased to be in force upon expiry of 15 years, in February, 1990. The question is whether the liability of the respondent to pay the dearness allowance during the relief period, and suspended by the notification, is revived after its expiry and therefore, whether the respondents are liable to pay the dearness allowance payable during the relief period. 9. We must make it clear that, we do not propose to adjudicate on the computation of the liability but only propose to decide the question of liability, which the parties have joined issue on. 10. 9. We must make it clear that, we do not propose to adjudicate on the computation of the liability but only propose to decide the question of liability, which the parties have joined issue on. 10. The answer to the question of the eligibility of the dearness allowance payable during the relief period largely depends on the effect of the notification during the relief period. If the effect of the notification is merely to suspend the liability during the relief period, then the lifting of the suspension can only have the effect of making the liability active. Section 4(1)(a)(ii) clearly provides that the effect of the notification shall be that agreements, settlement, awards, applicable to the undertaking immediately before the notification, shall be suspended from operation or shall be applied with modifications. Correspondingly, after the relief period, the same Section, vide Clause (b) provides that the right and liability revives and becomes enforceable on the notification ceasing force. The language of the law to wit, 'shall be suspended' and the corresponding words 'shall revive' clearly lays down that during the relief period the liability is not extinguished, but is only kept in limbo. 11. Shri Puranik, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 however, argued that the petitioners claim does not consist of any right, privilege or obligation accrued or incurred before the undertaking was declared a relief undertaking, but is composed of alleged rights, obligations etc. which arose after the undertaking was declared a relief undertaking, and therefore, cannot be revived vide Section 4(1)(a) and (b). According to the learned counsel, the respondent No. 3 reduced the payment of the dearness allowance from Rs. 30/- to Rs. 3.25, after the Mill was declared a relief undertaking and therefore, the liability in respect thereof cannot be said to be revived after the relief period. We see no merit in this contention. The liability to pay dearness allowance is clearly a liability which arose under the Mangalmurti Award and not during the relief period. What happened during the relief period was that the respondent employer reduced the rates of dearness allowance. While-the reduction may be part of the cause of action, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the liability to pay the dearness allowance itself arose after the undertaking was declared a relief undertaking. What happened during the relief period was that the respondent employer reduced the rates of dearness allowance. While-the reduction may be part of the cause of action, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the liability to pay the dearness allowance itself arose after the undertaking was declared a relief undertaking. In fact we might observe that, if the liability arose after the undertaking was declared as a relief undertaking, that must be taken to having been in force and capable of being enforced throughout this period, unaffected by the provisions of the Act. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that, the respondent Employer is liable to pay the dearness allowance under the Mangalmurti Award, that it was suspended during the relief period from January 28, 1975 to February, 1990 and that it revived and because (sic became) eligible after the expiry of that period. 12. Shri Puranik, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because the question of dearness allowance will have to be computed with reference to the work done by each workman and his entitlement. We agree with the submissions and consider it appropriate to direct that the petitioners may have their entitlement computed in accordance with the law. 13. Shri Puranik, the learned counsel for the respondent further pleaded delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not possible to accept the contention made on behalf of the respondents. The writ petition was filed in November, 1987 during the relief period. In the original petition as it stood, there was a claim for dearness allowance 'according to the Mangalmurti Award. The change that has taken place is that, the prayer to declare Sections 3 and 4 as unconstitutional along with the notification has been subsequently deleted and has been substituted with a prayer for dearness allowance on the basis of the notification. The essence of the objection on the ground of delay and laches is absent in the present case. The respondents were always aware and alive to the petitioners claim for dearness allowance during the relief period. The essence of the objection on the ground of delay and laches is absent in the present case. The respondents were always aware and alive to the petitioners claim for dearness allowance during the relief period. Merely because a change was made in the prayer clause and certain subsequent events were incorporated, we are not inclined to throw out the petition on the ground of delay and laches. In this view of the matter, we accordingly hold that the petitioners are entitled to raise any claim, including that of dearness allowance after the relief period is over in February, 1990, provided the liability has arisen prior to the relief period, as in the case of dearness allowance. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. 14. At this stage, Shri Puranik, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 prays for stay of this judgment. We see no reason to stay the judgment which is merely declaratory in nature, hence prayer for stay is rejected.