Gujarat High Court
Vadodara Municipal Corpo vs Workmen Working Under ... on 14 December, 2022
Bench: Sonia Gokani
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26972 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPO.
Versus
WORKMEN WORKING UNDER VADODARAMUNICIPAL CORPO. & 1
other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NILESH A PANDYA(549) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DARSHIT D THAKKAR(12434) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 14/12/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Challenge is made by the Vadodara
Municipal Corporation to the award passed
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
by the Industrial Tribunal at Vadodara in
Reference IT No.44 of 2000 with the brief
facts, which are as follow:
1.1 The respondent Union raised the demand
claiming conveyance allowance for those
employees, who are getting the cycle
allowance with effect from 01.04.1998 at
the rate of Rs.75 per month claiming the
same on the basis of the Government
Resolution.
1.2 It was referred for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal at Vadodara by
Reference No.44 of 2000.
1.3 The respondent Union filed a Statement
of Claim contending that the petitioner-
Corporation passed a Resolution to follow
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
and implement the Resolutions and Circulars
of the Government and the Circulars issued
by the Government providing conveyance
allowance to cover the expenses for 'to and
fro' journey from office to residence and
that will not entitle the person to get the
other allowance. Accordingly, the
Corporation passed the Resolution to pay
the conveyance allowance, however, the
petitioner Corporation interpreted it in
the manner that the Resolution would not
permit payment of conveyance allowance to
those workmen, who are getting cycle
allowance. The cycle allowance was to the
tune of Rs.45 per month and a conveyance
allowance was Rs.75 per month.
1.4 The demand was raised by the employees,
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
who were paid the conveyance allowance at
the rate of Rs.75 per month with effect
from 01.04.1998. The Union prayed for the
cost also the amount with 18% interest.
2. Petitioner Corporation filed the
written statement pointing out that the
demand was misconceived. Corporation passed
a Resolution to provide the conveyance
allowance to those employees, who are
residing at a distance of more than one
kilometer from the place of service and
they are not provided any commutation
facility of any vehicle of the Corporation.
2.1 This conveyance allowance was for those
employees, who were not getting either
cycle allowance or allowance in form of
fuel (petrol or diesel). They were given
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
the option for conveyance allowance in
lieu of cycle allowance in accordance with
the Circular dated 23.06.1998 and the
employee exercised the option in favour of
cycle allowance. It was therefore,
emphasized that they cannot get two
allowances of the same kind one for the
vehicle and another for the conveyance.
Therefore, the Corporation prayed for
rejection of Reference.
2.2 The Corporation also relied on the
Resolutions dated 20.05.1998 issued by the
Government of Gujarat, 01.07.1998 issued by
the petitioner Corporation, 11.05.1999
issued by the Corporation and 29.06.1998
issued by the Corporation once again and
on an agenda dated 23.06.1999 and
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
clarification dated 23.06.1999.
3. The Industrial Tribunal by its award
and order dated 14.02.2006 published on
05.04.2006 allowed the Reference partly and
directed the Corporation to pay separate
conveyance allowances with effect from
01.04.1998 to those workmen, who are
getting cycle allowance as a part of their
duty within the period of 60 days from the
date of publication of award with cost of
Rs.1000/-. Hence, this grievance and the
present petition with the following
prayers:
"6...
(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order calling for
the record and proceedings of reference IT No.44 of
2000 dated 14th February 2006 passed by the Industrial
Tribunal at Vadodara and after pursuing the same, be
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
pleased to quash and set aside the Award and Order
passed in reference IT No.44 of 2000 dated 14 th
February 2006.
(B) Be pleased to pass such other and further Orders
as may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(C) Be pleased to Award costs of this petition.
(D) During the admission, pendency, hearing and final
disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased
to stay the operation, implementation and execution of
the Award and Order passed in reference IT No.44 of
2000 dated 14th February 2006."
4. Other side was issued the notice and
pending the petition, the Court had granted
ad-interim stay in terms of para 6(D). This
petition was also admitted on 21.02.2007.
5. This petition when was taken up for
final hearing the Court has heard the
learned advocate, Mr.Pandya for the
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
petitioner and learned advocate, Mr.Darshit
Thakkar for respondent, who both along the
line of their respective pleadings argued
before this Court.
6. According to the learned advocate,
Mr.Pandya, the transport allowance once is
given as per the Resolution of the State
Government and the option is also offered
by the concerned employee, he cannot be
doubly benefited by asking for the amount
of Rs.75/- which has been given to those
employees, who are not availing the cycle
allowance or the petrol/diesel allowance.
He, relying on different Resolutions of the
Corporation and the State has urged that
the there is a need of interference on the
part of the Court concerned.
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
7. As against that the learned advocate,
Mr.Darshit Thakkar has urged that the two
allowances are mutually exclusive in as
much as the transport allowance was given
by way of a Resolution of the State
Government dated 20.05.1998. There was a
Resolution of 11.05.1995 which had spoken
of those of them getting the cycle
allowance to be given the transport
allowance. However, according to him, those
of them, who are getting the conveyance
allowance for commuting from their
residence to the office are also travelling
in the field by cycle and the cycle
allowance was basically meant for those of
the employees and hence, these two
allowances are not irreconcilable aspects.
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not
endorsed to the interpretation which has
been made by the Corporation and has
allowed the award and the order.
8. The Resolution dated 07.01.1998 of the
Government of Gujarat, Finance Department
speaks of the sympathetic consideration for
grant of allowance at par with Central
Government to its employees and hence,
State Government's employees are considered
entitled to the transport allowance at the
following rates:
No. Pay Scales of the Employees Rules of Transport Allowance per
month (In Rupees)
A-1/A Class City Other places
scale of pay of Rs.8000-
13,500 or above.
scale of pay of Rs.6500-
10500 or above but, below the
scale of Rs.8000-13500
the scale of Rs.6500-10500
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
8.1 This grant of transport allowance is
subjected to the furnishing of the
certificate by the Head of the
Department/Head of the Office that the
employee is not residing within one
kilometer from the place of work or within
a campus housing. The grant of the
transport allowance is regulated subject to
the following conditions:
"(i) The Cities referred to as "A" and "A-1" in these
orders shall be the same as those classified as such for
the purpose of Compensatory Local Allowance (CLA) in
terms of the orders issued separately regulating grant of
Compensatory Local Allowance to the State Government
Employees. The term "Other places" may include any
place were offices/formations of State Government are
located."
(ii) The Allowance shall not be admissible to those
employees who are residing within a distance of one
kilometer from the place of work or within a campus
housing the places of work and residence."
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
8.2 The allowance is not admissible to
those employees, who have been provided
with the facility of Government Transport.
If a person's absence is exceeding 30 days
due to leave or training then also this is
not admissible. This Clause (vi) provides
that in terms of the Government Resolution,
Finance Department dated 05.01.1979, as
amended from time to time, the conveyance
allowance is admissible to such of the
State Government employees born on regular
establishment as are blind or are
orthopedically handicapped. Consequent upon
coming into force of this orders, such
conveyance allowance shall be abolished and
instead, all such employees be paid the
transport allowance at double the normal
rates prescribed under the orders. However,
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
such handicapped employees, if have been
provided the Government accommodation
within the distance one kilometer from the
place of work or within campus, the
allowance shall be admissible at normal
rate. This is not to be allowed in case of
the employees, who have been provided with
the facility of the Government Transport.
9. On 29.06.1998, the Municipal
Corporation decided to make available to
this transport allowance to its employees.
At Clause (10) it had said that those of
the employees, who are getting the petrol
allowance or the vehicle allowance, they
will not be getting this nor will those who
are getting cycle allowance. Only those of
the employees, who have not been getting any
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
kind of allowance or petrol allowance, they
shall be given the transport allowance.
10. On 11.05.1999 the Municipal Corporation
has also come out with another Circular,
which says that those of the employees, who
are desirous of getting the transport
allowance instead of the cycle allowance,
they shall be entitled to such transport
allowance, which will be available to them
from 01.04.1998.
11. On 23.06.1999 the Corporation has come
out with another Circular to say that those
of them, who are getting the cycle
allowance and have given an option for
conveyance allowance or transport
allowance, a clarification is required in
the following manner:
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
"Such employees shall also continue to do
their work on a job, however, if they stop
attending to the work in the area their
transport allowance shall be stopped."
12. In Reference IT No.44 of 2000 the
Union had taken up the cause by urging that
most of them, who are using the cycle and
getting the cycle allowance of Rs.45/- per
month are not getting Rs.75/- as transport
allowance from 01.04.1998. Those of them
who are going on cycle are the labourers,
helpers, cleaners belonging to the Class-IV
employees. The grievance was that most of
those, who are getting Rs.75/- per month
are not moving in the field whereas the
Class-IV employees are going to the fields also
on their bicycles. Eventually, when negotiation
did not work out, the Reference was sent to
the Industrial Tribunal where the main
emphasis is that two kind of allowances to
one set of employees cannot be granted. It
could be either vehicle allowance or the
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
transport allowance.
13. On the part of the petitioner, it had
been argued that physically handicapped
people are getting double benefits. Those
of them, who do not reside within one
kilometer of the area also will be getting
the transport allowance. The cycle
allowance was given as a part of their
visit to different areas and fields as a
part of requirement of their visit during
service hours. It is given to them for
performing the duties in the field and not
for their transport from home to workplace
essentially as in the case of transport
allowance. Once they arrive from their
residence on cycle, they shall need to
perform the visit, whereas the conveyance
allowance is for commuting from the
residence to the place of work and back.
The cycle allowance is given to all those
persons for number of years whenever they
go for the field work.
14. The Industrial Tribunal had noted that
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
there is nothing on the record indicating
as to how the cycle allowance is being
given. It was for the maintenance of the
cycle and the cycle reparation that Rs.45/-
is given to those employees. This has been
made available to the Class-IV employees
after once they remained present on the
job. It is not being given to these
employees of Class-IV for commuting from
their residence to the place of service
and back home. The State Government when
has directed conveyance/transport allowance
to be given to all the employees by a
sympathetic consideration at par with the
Central Government, it had decided for the
benefit of the State Government employees
and the transport allowance was given to
all the employees and it was not admissible
for those, who were residing within a
distance of one kilometer from the place of
work. This has nowhere excluded those
employees, who have already worked and got
the cycle allowance. If the cycle allowance
was given to them from much before
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
essentially for the reparation and also for
their performance of duty once they already
are on a job and for them to attend to the
field visits as also to commute to
different work as Class-IV employees and
two allowances cannot be mixed up by the
employer.
15. In the opinion of this Court, the
Industrial Tribunal has committed no error
at all when it has rightly, unequivocally
and with desired clarity held that these
two allowances are mutually exclusive for
the reason that one is meant for
commutation from home to the service and
back, whereas the other one essentially is
meant for the employees of Class-IV who
reach to the place of the work and are
expected to discharge their duties and
perform the same using this as a vehicle.
It is given to the employees of Class-IV
who are to also perform their duties
visiting different places. No error is
committed. The interpretation made of the
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
base Resolution in no manner requires any
interference.
16. This Court had also examined this from
a different angle by finding out the value
of monthly bus pass of BRTS in Ahmedabad.
At present, it is Rs.2000/- for 3 months
and hence, amount of Rs.667/- per month.
Noticing the year in which such a
Resolution was passed by the State
Government, conveyance charge given to the
employee is Rs.75/- per month. If a person
travels by bus to reach to the place of
service, he gets Rs.75/- sitting in a bus
or using any of this conveyance and the
person who uses his bicycle, and uses his
physical strength and also helps the
environment is given less amount. He also
needs to continue to use his cycle for
other work unlike those employees who would
ask for travel expense if he needs to visit
anywhere as a part of his service.
17. Again, this vehicle allowance was
available much before this conveyance
C/SCA/26972/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
allowance was declared as rightly held by
Tribunal and noticing the nature of duties
of Class-IV employees, if the same was
given, they cannot be excluded from the
benefits of conveyance charges.
18. Accordingly, this petition is preferred
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India deserves no indulgence and the same
is accordingly dismissed. The order of the
Industrial Tribunal directing the amount,
to be paid to the concerned employees after
the resolution having been accepted by the
Corporation from 29.06.1998, shall be given
to them within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(SONIA GOKANI, J)
M.M.MIRZA
