JUDGMENT
Misra, J.
1. Whether the payment of wages authority while computing wages under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 in pursuance of an award passed by the Labour Court in favour of the workman after contest, can be held to have exceeded his jurisdiction while directing the management to make the payment, is the point which needs to be addressed in this writ petition.
2. To Appreciate the controversy it may be stated that this writ petition has been filed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway Kola against the respondent-Laxmi Narain Meena in whose favour an order under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has been passed by the Labour Court Jaipur computing Rs. 8,432/- as his travelling allowance which was ordered to be paid to him within a period of three months alongwith 12% interest per annum. This claim of the petitioner was based on the averment that he was posted with the respondent- Goods Supervisor Bharatpur on 1.1.85 when he had to travel to the Ammunition Depot Bharatpur since he had to discharge his duties at Ammunition Depot as Marker from 1.1.85 to 7.9.87. Thereafter, he was transferred at Goods Depot Bharatpur and again from 1.11.87 he was posted at the Ammunition Depot at Bharatpur. The respondent-workman had claimed that the amount under the contingency bill which included amount towards the Auto Riksha Bills and for travelling from Railway Station Godown Bharatpur to Ammunition Depot Bharatpur was payable by the petitioners. The respondent claimed and stated that no amount towards travelling allowance was paid to him by the petitioners and he also furnished a detail in this regard that it should have been paid at the rate of Rs. 16/- per day and accordingly the travelling allowance from 1,11.87 to 31.10.89 at the rate of Rs. 16/- was calculated as Rs. 8,432/- which had not been paid to the respondent. The respondent-workman’s case was that he had to travel daily from Goods Depot Bharatpur to Ammunition Depot at Bharatpur and he had also written a letter on 30.6.86 to the Goods Supervisor in this regard and submitted the contingency bill to the Station Supervisor but the authorities did not forward the bill nor any payment was made to him. The petitioner- Railways thus failed to make the payment for the period from 1.1.85 to 7.9.89 and for this purpose the respondent had to approach the Labour Court claiming the payment towards travelling allowance from 1.1.85 to 7.9.89 and he had succeeded before the Labour Court wherein an award was passed in his favour for Rs. 8,368/- which was paid to the respondent workman. The petitioner thereafter failed to make the payment for the subsequent period i.e. from 1.11,87 to 31.10.89 inspite of the fact that the principal question was already decided in his favour by the Labour Court that he is entitled to travel-allowance for discharging his duty at Ammunition Depot Bharatpur and had to travel from Goods Depot to Ammunition Depot.
3. The petitioners who were respondents before the Labour Court contesting the claim of the respondent had submitted that the respondent had never discharged duties at Ammunition Depot at Bharatpur and further contested that there is no award in his favour or settlement in pursuance of which he could claim this amount.
4. The Judge of the Labour Court allowed the parties to fead evidence, during which the respondent produced the certificate issued by the competent authority of the Western Railway, which had passed the order deputing the respondent to discharge his duties at Ammunition Depot at Bharatpur who had to travel from Goods Depot to Ammunition Depot. The authorities of the petitioner-Western Railway could not succeed in challenging the veracity and genuineness of the certificate as the only evidence which was led by the petitioner-Railways was oral evidence to the effect that no such certificate was issued by the Department. The Labour Court has rightly recorded that the documentary evidence cannot be allowed to be challenged by oral evidence passed merely on memory and oral assertion and thus the finding which has been recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner was entitled to this amount towards travelling allowance cannot be held to be suffering from any infirmity.
5. It is no doubt true that the Labour Court at the time of computation of the amount under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot enter into a scrutiny of the contesting claim of the parties, but in the instant case it could be noticed that the principal question as to whether the petitioner had been deputed to discharge his duties at the Ammunition Depot Bharatpur and had to travel from Goods Depot Bharatpur to Ammunition Depot at Bharatpur and whether he was entitled to travelling allowance on this court under contingency allowance had already been decided by the Labour Court earlier when the respondent had claimed the travelling allowance for the period from 1.1.85 to 7.9.87 and had succeeded in proving that he had to do this by virtue of the order passed by the Railways. The Railway authorities therefore had to comply with this award and had to make the payment for this period.
It was therefore expected of the Railway authorities to continue to pay the travelling allowance for the subsequent period also once the respondent-workman had succeeded in establishing that he had to undertake this travelling. It is quite obvious, that the petitioner-Railways although had paid the amount for 1.1.85 to 7.9.85, they preferred to defy the Labour Court’s award for the subsequent period which is wholly unjustified for once the question as to whether the respondent-workman had to undertake the travelling from Goods Depot to Ammunition Depot already stood settled by the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner Western Railway was legally bound to pay that amount for the subsequent period also and raising objection before the Labour Court was clearly unjustified and illegal. As already stated the moot question regarding entitled of the respondent to receive travelling allowance had already been decided earlier and the same was fit to be carried out for the entire period during which the petitioner was discharging his duties from Goods Depot to Ammunition Depot. In this circumstance, if the Labour Court has computed the amount regarding entitlement of the respondent towards travelling allowance alongwith interest, the same is not fit to be interfered with. In my view the interest part is also perfectly justified since the petitioner had utterly defied the Labour Court’s award which had held that the respondent was entitled to travelling allowance and hence the petitioner-Western Railway had no authority to raise the same question all over again before the payment of wages authority. The order passed by the Labour Court Bharatpur under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 thus is totally justified and needs no interference. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.