JUDGMENT : H.H. Kantharia, J.—By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the 2nd Labour Court at Kolhapur on June 23, 1981 in I.D.A. Application Nos. 168, 169, 170, 171, and 177 of 1977 u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The short facts giving rise to this Writ Petition are as under: The Petitioners are a co-operative sugar factory at Walwa in Sangli District. They employed about 600 employees during the off season and about 1000 employees during the crushing season. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and two more persons (whose names are now deleted) were the employees of the petitioners and office-bearers of the representative union. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall hereinafter be referred to as "the respondents". They were attending hearings of the industrial and labour disputes on behalf of the union at Kolhapur, Pune and Bombay before various authorities and Courts and Tribunals under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Whenever they attended Courts in this manner and were not on duty at the factory, they were not treated absent from duty and were paid their usual emoluments for those days. However, they claimed that they should be paid travelling and daily allowances whenever they attended Courts at Kolhapur, Pune or Bombay. Their claims were not entertained and, therefore, they filed applications u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the Court of the learned Labour Judge presiding over the 2nd Court at Kolhapur. On the submissions made before him, the learned Labour Judge came to the conclusion that they were entitled to the travelling allowances and by the impugned judgment and order granted diverse sums in their favour. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing the present writ petition. 4. On the submissions made before him, the learned Labour Judge came to the conclusion that they were entitled to the travelling allowances and by the impugned judgment and order granted diverse sums in their favour. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing the present writ petition. 4. Now, it is to be noted that the respondents claim travelling allowances under the provisions of Section 23 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 which reads as under: "Not more than two members of a recognised union duly authorised by it in writing who appear or act on its behalf in any proceeding under the Central Act or the Bombay Act or under this Act shall be deemed to be on duty on the days on which such proceedings actually take place, and accordingly, such member or members shall, on production of a certificate from the authority of the court before which he or they so appeared or acted on the days specified in the certificate, be entitled to be paid by his or their employer his or their salary and allowances which would have been payable for those days as if he or they had attended duty on those days. Explanation - For the purpose of this Section "recognised union includes a representative union under the Bombay Act". According to this provision of law, not more than two persons who are office-bearers of a representative union and appear in any proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act or the Bombay Industrial Relations Act or the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act would be deemed to be on duty on such dates and on production of requisite certificates in that behalf they would be entitled to salary and allowances which would have been payable to them had they been on duty on these days at the factory. In other words, the office-bearers of the representative union who would be otherwise absent at their place of work at the factory on account of they attending Courts on behalf of the union would not be treated absent from duty and would be treated as if they were on duty at the factory and their wages would be protected as if they were on duty. Admittedly, whenever the respondents attended Courts or other authorities under either the Industrial Disputes Act or the Bombay Industrial Relations Act or the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act either in Bombay or in Pune or in Kolhapur, they were treated as if they were on duty and were paid their basic salary and dearness allowance as they would be entitled had they been on duty at the factory. The respondents wanted travelling allowances for travelling to the various places like Bombay, Kolhapur and Pune by stretching the definition of 'salary and allowances' mentioned in Section 23 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. In my opinion, they would not be entitled to such travelling allowances for the simple reason that under the provisions of Section 23 itself what they would be entitled to would be salary and allowances which are the existing rights and not the sum of money spent on travelling allowances which would not only be uncertain but would also be not existing rights. 'Travelling allowances' which are not mentioned in Section 23 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act could not be read therein and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that such travelling allowances in the nature of existing rights would be payable to the respondents under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, therefore, committed grave error of law in granting the claim of the respondents for travelling allowances in applications u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This error apparent on the face of the record will have to be rectified. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Judge is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute but with no order as to costs.