JUDGMENT : R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Challenge to the order passed by the 1st Labour Court, Nagpur on 20.7.1988 is made in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By the order dated 20.7.1988 the 1st Labour Court, Nagpur on the application filed by Respondent No. 2 Vishveshwar Damduji (for short, the 'employee') u/s 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act directed the petitioners Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation and Dy. Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Zilla Parishad (for short, the 'employer') to pay an amount of Rs. 4623.70 towards the travelling allowance for the period from August 1981 to December 1983. The Labour Court also awarded cost of Rs. 200/- to the employee payable by the employer. The employee filed an application u/s 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming travelling allowance from August 1981 to December 1983. The said application was filed by the employee before the Labour Court on 9.3.1987. The details of the travelling allowance claimed by the employee are as under:- xxx xxx xxx 2. According to the employee, he made an application on 19.11.1984 for getting travelling allowance bills, but the employer did not take any care for the said travelling allowance bills. 3. Application filed by the employee u/s 33(c)(2) was contested before the Labour Court by the employer and one of the contentions raised was that under Rule 44(4) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Code, 1968, the bills for travelling allowances were required to be filed within one year of its having accrued and in case the claim of travelling allowance was not made within the aforesaid period, the travelling allowance would be deemed to have been forfeited and the employee would be deemed to have relinquished the said claim. 4. The Labour Court considered the application filed by the employee and the contention raised by the employee and by the order dated 20.7.1988 impugned in the present writ petition, did not find any merit in the contention raised by the employer and issued the aforesaid direction. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. Mr. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. Mr. Chaudhari, the learned counsel for the employer has contended that under Rule 44(4) of the said Code, bills of travelling allowances were required to be raised within one year of its accrual or having become due and since the travelling allowance bills were not furnished within the aforesaid time, the Labour Court was not justified in directing payment of such travelling allowance to the employee. 7. The learned counsel for the employer has not disputed the correctness of the finding recorded by the Labour Court that delay in making the T.A. bills by the employee was occasioned because of non-supply of log-book by the employer. It is also not disputed that the employee made several requests to the employer for supply of the log-books to enable him to make travelling allowance bills. In the absence of the log-books naturally the employee could not prepare the travelling allowance bills and by withholding the log-books, the employer could not have frustrated the right of employee in claiming the Travelling Allowance. The Labour court has considered this aspect of the matter in paras 8 and 9 of the order which reads as under:- "8. It is true that as per Rules, the T.A. Bill is to be submitted within one year from the date of journey. In the resent case, the delay has been caused because of the non-supply of the log-books to the applicant despite several requests made by him in this behalf. The applicant was never informed that he should submit the T.A. Bills without enclosing copy from the log-book an now the plea is raised that since the T.A. Bills were submitted late, the same cannot be sanctioned. It must be remembered that in the present case, the Department does not dispute that the applicant was required to attend the workshop daily from his Headquarters at Jugadhari. The proprietor of the workshop - Shri Ghuguskar has deposed that this vehicle M.G.H. 5016 was lying in a workshop for repairs and it was brought to his workshop in the month of July 1981. The applicant used to attend the workshop from 9.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. and from 2.00 P.M. to 6.00 P.M. and that this state of affairs continued till February 1984. The applicant used to attend the workshop from 9.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. and from 2.00 P.M. to 6.00 P.M. and that this state of affairs continued till February 1984. Not only that during this period, Junior Engineer (Mech.) also attended the workshop of Shri Ghuguskar intermittently. Shri Ghuguskar was not cross-examined. 9. In my opinion, it cannot now lie in the mouth of department officials that because of the delay, T.T.A. bills cannot be sanctioned. The Departmental Officials were responsible for the delay because they took the log-book from the applicant and never returned the same to him. The applicant was not informed that he should submit the T.A. bills without enclosing copy from the log-book. It is now of no use to submit before me that the applicant could have submitted the T.A. bills without enclosing a copy from the log-book. Thus, department could have informed the applicant much earlier. The applicant cannot be punished for lapses on the part of the departmental officials. The claim of the applicant is genuine and the department, without valid reasons is trying to defeat the same on the technical ground of limitation. The authorities could have condoned the duly in the circumstances of this ask and that would not have in any way violated any rules applicable to such T.A. Bills. The finding to issue Nos. 1 and 2 are given accordingly." 8. Rule 44(4) of the Maharashtra Zilla Portioned and Panchayat Samitis Code, 1968 reads as under:- "The right of Zilla Parishad servant to travelling allowance including the daily allowance, transfer travelling allowance, conveyance allowance and permanent travelling allowance shall be forfeited or deemed to have been relinquished if the claim therefore is no preferred within one year from the date on which it accrues." By the said rule, it is intended that an employee should clam travelling allowance within one year of its accrual failing with such travelling allowance shall be deeded to have been relinquished by the employee or shall stand forfeited. However, the employer cannot, by his conduct, omission or commission, defeat the legitimate right of the employee of claiming travelling allowance by not supplying him he requisite inferring or details from the log book. The employee driver is not expected to remember the details of the travelling everyday and travelling allowance can only be claimed by an employee on the basis of log-book. The employee driver is not expected to remember the details of the travelling everyday and travelling allowance can only be claimed by an employee on the basis of log-book. Log-book is thus, a very important document for claiming travelling allowance and in the absence of log-book is thus, a very important document for claiming travelling allowance and in the available to the employee within time, the Labour Court rightly concluded that it was not open to the employer to set up the defence that the employee has not claimed raveling allowance within one year from the date on which it accrued. 9. The order passed by the Labour Court is immanently just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity or error of law of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Rules is discharged.