JUDGMENT
R.M. Doshit, J.
1 Heard learned advocate Mr. P.G Desai for the petitioner. Respondents though served have not entered their appearance.
2. Petitioner before this Court, the Vadodara Municipal Corporation [hereinafter referred to as, `the Corporation’], challenges the judgment and award dated 15th April, 1994 made by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No. 82 of 1990 and the Order dated 4th August, 1994 made in Misc. Application No. 14 of 1994.
3. The Mechanic Plumber-cum-Plumbing Supervisors [hereinafter referred to as, `the workmen’] serving in the Corporation raised a demand for Vicky allowance [petrol allowance] through their Unions, the respondents herein. The said demand was not accepted by the Corporation. Feeling aggrieved, the workmen raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal and registered as above. The learned Tribunal having tried the reference, under the impugned Award dated 15th April, 1994, directed that the workmen were entitled to Vicky Allowance with effect from 1st May, 1997. Thereupon, the workmen preferred the above Misc. Application No. 14 of 1994 and claimed that the effective date of the Award shall be the date of the reference. Learned Tribunal having accepted the contention, under the impugned Order dated 4th August, 1994, modified the award and made it effective from 1st May, 1990. Therefore, the petition.
4. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the relevant facts and has erred in comparing the case of the workmen with the other employees of the Corporation viz., Octroi Inspectors, Tracers, etc. who have to perform out-door duties. It is submitted that the workmen are required to report for duty at the Zonal Office and they have to perform their duty within the Zone. The workmen, therefore, do not have to move about a long distance. Moreover, they have to attend the complaints received and are not supposed to render continuous out-door duty. The learned Tribunal without considering the nature of duties has erroneously compared the case of the workmen with those of Octroi Inspectors, Tracers, etc. Besides, the Corporation grants Cycle allowance to the workmen and the claim for Vicky allowance was wholly unjustified.
5. Considering the pleadings and the evidence on record, it does appear that the workmen do not have to travel long distance and their duties are confined to the area of the respective zone alone and ordinarily, they do not have to travel more than three to four kilometers a day. Further, in case of emergency, other vehicles are available. Besides, the learned Tribunal has also not considered the nature of duties of the Octroi Inspectors, Tracers, etc. without which the claim for Vicky allowance could not have been properly appreciated. In absence of any evidence, the case of the Octroi Inspectors and the Tracers cannot be compared with that of the workmen. The claim for Vicky allowance could not have been justiciably granted merely because the workmen have to perform out-door duty. There being no other evidence on the record, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in allowing Vicky allowance to the workmen.
6. Petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 15th April, 1994 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No. 82 of 1990 and the Order dated 4th August, 1994 made on Misc. Application No. 14 of 1994 are quashed and set-aside. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.