JUDGMENT : C.A. Vaidialingam, J. This appeal. by special leave, by the workmen, is directed against the award, dated July 29, 1965 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in Reference (IT-CG) No. 6 of 1964. 2. The Central Govt., under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, the following two questions: "(1) Whether the running staff of the Calcutta Port Commissioner's Railway should get such running allowance as is admissible to the running staff of the State Railways performing comparable duties and if so, whether such allowance should be in the form of a higher pay scale or in the form of a running allowance, and in the latter case at what rates and to what extent should such allowances be treated as pay? (2) Whether the demand that free passes and P. T. Os., on the lines admissible to the employees on the State Railways should be made available to the Railway employees in the various Departments of the Port Commissioners is justified?" Three labour Unions (1) the Calcutta Port Shramik Union; (2) the National Union Port Trust Employees; and (3) the Calcutta Port and Dock Workers Union filed statements of claim before the Tribunal on behalf of the workmen. As the claims were substantially the same we shall refer to the matters mentioned in the claim made by the Calcutta Port Shramik Union. The workmen were employed in the railway maintained by the Calcutta Port Commissioners. After stating that the Calcutta Port trust maintains about 2336 wagons, 61 steam locomotives and 9 diesel locomotives, the Union pointed out that the Calcutta Port Trust cooperated with the State Railways and received on an average about 13 trains and despatched an equal number of trains. The Classification and Categorisation Committee, in May 1961 fixed the pay scales of the Port Trust Railway Employees without taking into consideration the running allowance and free passes and P. T. Os enjoyed by similar employees on the State Railways. The Union pointed out that the Committee declined to take into account the extraneous benefits which were given by the Indian Railways to its employees but not available to the employees of Port Railways and which will justify a higher scale of pay on the ground that the terms of reference did not permit it to do so. The Union pointed out that the Committee declined to take into account the extraneous benefits which were given by the Indian Railways to its employees but not available to the employees of Port Railways and which will justify a higher scale of pay on the ground that the terms of reference did not permit it to do so. That is, according to the Union, the Committee would have otherwise fixed a higher scale of pay to the Port Railway employees. The running allowance was paid by the State Railways to its employees as an incentive for safe and punctual movement of trains and the said running allowance was treated as pay to the extent, of 75% for the purpose of leave salary, dearness allowance, retirement benefits etc. Regarding the grant of railway passes and P. T. Os the Union referred to the practice obtaining in the State Railways and urged that the said benefit should be made available to the Port Railway employees. According to the Union the drivers and firemen of the Port Trust Railway were comparable with C- grade Drivers and corresponding grade of firemen in the State Railways. The shunter gunners of the Port Trust Railway did duty similar to those performed by C-grade Guards of the goods trains and the sub-gunners in the Port. Trust Railway were comparable to the brakesmen on State Railways. The Union also pointed out that in the Ports of Cochin. Kandla and Vizagapatam the maintenance of the Port railways was by the State Governments and the work done by them were identical with the work done by the Port Railway employees in Calcutta. Notwithstanding this, the employees at Calcutta were receiving grossly inadequate emoluments. In short the Union's plea was that the employees in the Calcutta Port Trust Railway were comparable with their counterparts in the State Railways and the benefits obtained by the employees under the latter should be made available to them. 3. The Calcutta Port Trust Commissioners contested the claim of the workmen both regarding the payment of running allowance, as also the grant of free passes and P. T. Os. They pointed out that the duties and responsibilities of loco drivers and firemen in the Port Trust were not comparable with C-grade Drivers and Firemen on the State Railways. 3. The Calcutta Port Trust Commissioners contested the claim of the workmen both regarding the payment of running allowance, as also the grant of free passes and P. T. Os. They pointed out that the duties and responsibilities of loco drivers and firemen in the Port Trust were not comparable with C-grade Drivers and Firemen on the State Railways. According to the Commissioners, the shunter-gunners and sub-gunners could be compared with shunting jamadars on State Railways whose duty was sorting and formation of trains in the correct marshaling order under instructions from the Station Master or Yard Master. They pointed out that the shunting jamadar and coupling porters on State Railways were not entitled to running allowance. According to the Port Trust Commissioners, the railways in the ports of Cochin. Kandla and Vizagapatam were being maintained by the respective State Railways and in consequence the employees in those areas got the same pay, allowances and other privileges as those available to the employees of the State Railways working outside those areas. They pointed out that the work on the Port Trust Railway could not by any means be compared with the work on the State Railways. The Port Trust Railway was mainly confined to shunting work and hauling of loads within the limited Port Trust yard at a very slow speed, without any time schedule, whereas the work on the State Railways involved speedy carriage of passengers, livestock. perishables and goods over long distances, operating on definite time schedules. The duties performed by the loco drivers and firemen working on the Port railway were to some extent comparable with those performed by shunters and firemen on shunting engines on the State Railways. The reason for payment of running allowance to State Railway shunters who were promoted from firemen were also stated by the Port Trust. It also furnished a statement of the grades of pay of the shunters, firemen and second firemen in the State Railways as well as the firemen and loco driver in the Port Trust Railways and pointed out that the emoluments obtained by the latter were higher than those obtained by the employees of the State Railways. 4. The Port Trust also referred to various other benefits such as overtime allowance, leave facilities, payment of Calcutta City Compensatory allowance. 4. The Port Trust also referred to various other benefits such as overtime allowance, leave facilities, payment of Calcutta City Compensatory allowance. the giving of rent-free quarters or payment of house allowance and pointed out that the service conditions of employees of the Port Trust Railway were quite satisfactory. Regarding the claim for grant of free passes and P. T. Os. the Port Trust referred to the historical background for the grant of free passes and P. T. Os to the employees in the State Railways. It referred to the fact that it was not a passenger railway and the Port Trust could not enter into reciprocal arrangements with the various State Railways for the grant of free passes and P. T. Os to their employees. The Port Trust also referred to the assistance given to its employees in the matter of payment of 90% of the fare under circumstances referred to by them. In short, the Port Trust pointed out that the employees of the Port Trust Railway, by the nature of the duties discharged by them, could not be compared with the employees of the State Railways. 5. The Industrial Tribunal, under the award in question, has rejected both the claims made by the employees. 6. Mr. H. R. Gokhale, learned counsel for the appellant workmen urged that the entire approach made by the Industrial Tribunal for rejecting the claims of the appellants was erroneous and the Tribunal had grossly misunderstood the nature of the duties performed by the appellant-workmen in the Port Railways. The learned counsel has referred us to certain passages occurring in the Report of the Committee for the Classification and Categorisation of Class III and Class IV Employees of Major Ports (shortly referred to as the Jeejeebhoy Report) in support of his contention that the present demands of the workmen were considered reasonable and fair even by that Committee. Counsel also referred us to a communication, dated May 23, 1947 from the Government of India, Transport Department, to the Chairman of the respondent Port Trust stating that the Port Trust employees at all ports should be treated on a uniform basis and asking the Port Trust to adopt the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission's decision of May 16, 1947 regarding its employees. In short, according to Mr. In short, according to Mr. Gokhale, the nature of the work done by the employees of the Port Railway was similar substantially to that discharged by the employees of the State Railways and as such the workmen should have been held entitled to both the demands made by them. 7. After a consideration of the materials before us, we are satisfied that the rejection, by the Industrial Tribunal, of the two demands made by the appellants. is justified. 8. The important question that arises for consideration in considering the claim for payment of running allowance is as to whether the employees of the Port Trust Railway can be compared in all material respects with the employees of the State Railways. To put it differently, the question will be whether both the sets of employees do substantially the same or similar nature of work. The answer, in our opinion, must be in the negative. There is no controversy that the work on the Port Trust Railway is almost exclusively confined to shunting work and hauling of loads to and from the different sheds situated within the limited area of the Port Trust. The trains in this area run at very slow speeds, not exceeding six miles an hour and without scheduled timings. There is the further circumstance that the Port Trust Railway has no passenger service. The Port Trust Railway employees are also; not liable to transfer for duty outside the port area. On the other hand, the running staff of the State Railways have to run both passenger and goods trains over very long distances and the trains will have to keep up to the time schedules. There is no dispute - and it is borne out also by the report of the Second pay Commission - that a substantial portion of the total emoluments of the running staff in the State Railways is in the form of running allowance, a factor which has to be borne in mind while determining pay scales. Running allowance is paid as an, incentive for the safe and punctual movement of trains, though a small portion of the same is intended to cover travelling allowance. The running allowance is treated as pay to the extent of 75 % for the purposes of leave salary, dearness allowance, retirement benefits etc. Running allowance is paid as an, incentive for the safe and punctual movement of trains, though a small portion of the same is intended to cover travelling allowance. The running allowance is treated as pay to the extent of 75 % for the purposes of leave salary, dearness allowance, retirement benefits etc. It is in view of the arduous and taxing work, coupled with the fact that the goods and passenger services on the State Railways have to keep up to the time schedules that the running allowance is paid to the staff" of the State Railways. These factors are not present in the working of Port Railways. The fact that these allowances are paid to the employees in the ports of Cochin. Kandla and Vizagapatam will not assist the appellant because admittedly the movement of goods to and from these ports as also maintenance of the railway system and railway commercial work are done by the State Railway employees. Further, the employees in those areas, though they may be at particular times working within the ports, are liable to transfer for doing duty on the other railway lines belonging to the State Railway. Therefore it stands to reason that the railway staff working in those ports are treated on a Par with the running staff working outside the port and both are paid running allowance Neither the communication of the Government of India, dated May 23,1947 nor the passages referred to in the Jeejeebhoy Report assist the appellant. The former was a communication from the Government of India. Transport Department to the Chairman, Calcutta Port Commissioners. The Government have expressed the desire that the employees in all the ports should get pay scales according to the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission and accordingly advised the Calcutta Port Commissioners to give effect to the recommendations in respect of the matters mentioned in their letter. We do not find anything in this letter which will lend support to the contention of the appellant that the employees of the Calcutta Port Trust Railway discharged substantially similar duties and functions as those discharged by the employees of the State Railways. 9. Some reliance was placed on the report of Shri P. C. Choudhary who was appointed in November 1956 as Special Officer to make an enquiry into the pay scales and allowances of class III and class IV employees of major ports. 9. Some reliance was placed on the report of Shri P. C. Choudhary who was appointed in November 1956 as Special Officer to make an enquiry into the pay scales and allowances of class III and class IV employees of major ports. No doubt the said officer appears to have made a recommendation for transfer of employees of port trust railways to the State Government but the report of this officer does not appear to have been accepted by the Government as is seen from the fact that the Central Government appointed the Jeejeebhoy Committee in July 1958. The report of this Committee also does not advance the case of the appellants. The claim appears to have been made before this Committee by the Port Trust Railway staff that the extraneous benefits given by the Indian Railways to their employees and which were not given by the Port Railways justifies a higher scale of pay for the Port Railway employees. The Committee however declined to take into account those extra benefits as it thought that the terms of reference contained in the Government Resolution constituting the Committee were precise and that extra benefits were not to be calculated for the purpose of fixing particular categories in particular scales. We do not find anything in the Report of the Committee to draw an inference that the Committee was otherwise satisfied. that the Port Trust employees would be entitled to the payment of running allowance. As pointed out by the Tribunal the emoluments of loco drivers have been fixed more or less corresponding to that of the State Railway drivers, Grade III, though the nature of the work discharged by the two sets of drivers were not necessarily the same. The Tribunal has also held that the pay scales for the running staff of the Port Trust Railway employees compares favourably with the scale of pay of their counterparts in the State Railways. 10. A point was made that even in the State Railways, running allowance is given for running on special routes, slow moving trains on ghat sections, ballast trains etc., and therefore a similar payment must be made to the running staff of the Port Railways, who have necessarily to run the trains at a rather slow speed. 10. A point was made that even in the State Railways, running allowance is given for running on special routes, slow moving trains on ghat sections, ballast trains etc., and therefore a similar payment must be made to the running staff of the Port Railways, who have necessarily to run the trains at a rather slow speed. In our opinion there is absolutely no comparison with the work done by the railway staff running over difficult ghat sections and ballast trains which have to run so as not to disturb other trains on the sections and that of the slow moving trains within the Port area. 11. Apart from the various circumstances mentioned above, it is also seen that the employees of the Port Trust Railway get various other advantages by way of overtime at double rate, supply of rent free quartets or payment of house allowance at double the ordinary rate of house allowance and also in the matter of the number of holidays enjoyed by them. The Port Trust employees who are stationed a Calcutta and who are not liable to transfer to other places, also get Calcutta City Compensatory Allowance. Having due regard to the circumstances mentioned above the Tribunal was justified in not acceding to demand No. 1. 12. Regarding the grant of free passes and P.T.Os., which is the subject-matter of the second demand of the workmen, here again, it is necessary to note the circumstances under which those concessions were given by the State Railways. The State Railways which were previously owned by private companies allowed their employees to avail themselves of the transport facilities free and each private railway company had entered into reciprocal arrangements for this purpose with the other railway companies. Therefore it will be seen that it was by mutual arrangement and agreement that the private railway companies were able to provide for free passes and travel facilities to their employees not only over the railway belonging to them but also over the railways belonging to other companies. The claim of each company as against the other, in this regard, appears to have been made up by more or less book adjustment. The claim of each company as against the other, in this regard, appears to have been made up by more or less book adjustment. Even after the Government took over the railways it must have considered it not advisable to discontinue the privilege which was available to the railway employees over a considerable length of time and therefore the privilege was allowed to continue under Government also. The Port Commissioners allowed P. T. Os once a year to their Class IV employees to which the yard porters, jamadars and cabin jamadars belong. The Port Railways, so far as we can see have no reciprocal arrangements over the other railways and it should not be missed that the Port Railways do not run passenger trains. In view of these circumstances we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting this claim also. 13. It is of interest to note that even the Second Pay Commission has observed that the travel privileges allowed to railway employees are conspicuously extravagant and in a large part indefensible and that privilege has been allowed to continue solely because that it has been a traditional privilege enjoyed by the workmen. In fact the Second Pay Commission has even stated that there is a clear case for a drastic curtailment of travel concessions allowed to railway employees. When that is the position regarding the State Railways in our opinion, no case has been made out by the appellants for recognition of this claim. 14. In this appeal we postponed delivery of our judgment in view of a request made by Mr. Gokhale, appearing for the appellants, that a similar claim for grant of running allowance ,and free passes and P. T. Os arise for consideration by this Court at the instance of the workmen of the Bombay Port Trust in Civil Appeals Nos. 965 and 1966 of 1966. Accordingly, the said two appeals were also heard and judgment is being delivered therein today. In those two appeals, apart from the claims or running allowance and grant of free passes a further Question was also raised regarding the grade to be given to the Port Trust loco drivers and loco firemen. The demand is that the loco drivers and loco firemen in the Port Trust should be ranked with B-grade drivers and A-scale firemen, respectively, on the State Railways and their emoluments fixed accordingly. The demand is that the loco drivers and loco firemen in the Port Trust should be ranked with B-grade drivers and A-scale firemen, respectively, on the State Railways and their emoluments fixed accordingly. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay, on the other hand, contest the claim of the workmen and, according to the Trustees, the loco drivers and loco firemen are comparable only with the shunter drivers and second-grade firemen in the State Railways. There is also a further claim by the workmen that even on the basis that the loco drivers are ranked along with shunter drivers, nevertheless the former are eligible for grant of running allowance. These points do not arise for consideration in Civil Appeal No. 973 of 1966. Further, in this appeal, the demand of the workmen is that the loco drivers are comparable with C-grade drivers in the State Railways. In view of these and other circumstances, we have decided to deal with the points arising in Civil Appeal No. 973 of 1966 and in the other two appeals, by separate judgments. In the result. Civil Appeal No. 973 of 1966 fails and is dismissed, but with out order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.