JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner is the Chief Officer of Sangli Municipal Council, Sangli and the respondent Nos. 2 to 29 and 31 to 32 are its employees. 2.Pursuant to a settlement dated 20-8-1984 the employees were entitled to get Leave Travel Allowance at the rate mentioned therein. The said clause in settlement is reproduced below: "Leave Travel Allowance :- It is agreed by the Sangli Municipal Council to pay Leave Travel Allowance at the rate to the categorise as mentioned below once in two years :- (i) Employees drawing basic pay upto Rs. 500/- p.m.Rs. 300/- (ii) Employees drawing basic pay between Rs. 510/- and Rs. 750/- p.m. Rs. 450/- (iii) Employees drawing basic pay above Rs. 750/- p.m.Rs. 600/- This terms shall come in force w.e.f. 1-1-1984. The allowance shall be payable only after leave travel is sanctioned and on production of travelling bills." It appears that the respondent employees filed an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 praying to the Labour Court for determination and computation of the monies/benefits to which they were entitled under the Settlement. By its order dated 23-11-1992 the Labour Court has interpreted the Settlement and determined the entitlement of the employees to get the money due under the Settlement for the Leave Travel Allowance. The Labour Court has awarded the amounts due to each of the employee as per her order. It is significant to note that the determination and computation of the money due from the petitioner was in terms of the Settlement dated 20-8-1984. The Labour Court has also specifically mentioned as under : "However, considering the fact that it appears that in absence of any such rules, it must be held that as per that agreement the employees in all the departments are entitled to receive the amount as per the agreement since 1-1-1984 to 1989 on the date of filing this application. As such they are only entitled to claim the leave travel allowance only for the period 1984, 1986 and 1988 as it is agreed to pay one in 2 years. Further the persons who are claiming such allowance are also responsible to comply with the conditions in the agreement i.e. they have to produce the travelling bills and when the leave travel is sanctioned. Further the persons who are claiming such allowance are also responsible to comply with the conditions in the agreement i.e. they have to produce the travelling bills and when the leave travel is sanctioned. In such circumstances, I come to the conclusions that the applicants' application are partly allowed and the applicants are only entitled to claim Leave Travel Allowance only for 3 years i.e. 1984, 1986 and 1988." It is therefore clear that the determination of the employees rights is under the settlement and to get benefits under the settlement and to comply with all the terms of the settlement. It appears that a condition precedent to get the said amount was production of travelling bills and sanction of leave travel. It appears that since the employees did not comply with the conditions, the petitioners could not comply with the order of the Labour Court. The employees therefore approached the Commissioner of Labour under section 33-C(1) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for recovery. Curious enough the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour has passed an order on 17-7-1993 directing the petitioner to pay the said amount unconditionally. The said officer has interpreted the order of the Labour Court as if there was a direction to pay the said amount without complying with the precondition as set out by the Labour Court in the body of the judgment. Unfortunately the Labour Court has omitted to mention that clause in the operative part of that order and therefore the employees and also the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour have interpreted the said order of the Labour Court as it was unconditional. The Asstt. Commissioner of Labour ought to have applied his mind to read the whole judgment of the Labour Court which is more than clear. No doubt the Labour Court has not specifically mentioned that the payment should be in accordance with the terms of the settlement and after complying with the conditions mentioned therein. We have to construe the operative part of the order of the Labour Court in the background of the judgment or decision on which the operative part of the order is based. We cannot ignore the reasoning part of the judgment. We have to construe the operative part of the order of the Labour Court in the background of the judgment or decision on which the operative part of the order is based. We cannot ignore the reasoning part of the judgment. In the body of the judgment the learned Judge has correctly set out the legal position in the light of the terms of the settlement that employees have to satisfy the terms of the settlement that is leave travel sanction and production of travelling bills. Since the order of the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour is erroneous and is not in accordance with the order of the Labour Court I quash and set aside same. I also quash and set aside the certificate dated 17-7-1993 issued by the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour under section 33(C)(1) and (4) of the Act. 3.The petitioners have sought the order of the Labour Court to be quashed and set aside. I am however, not inclined to do so as the said order is perfectly legal and proper. The Labour Court has determined and computed the amount of money due from the petitioner under the Settlement. It is an admitted position that the employees were not paid the said benefits and admittedly the petitioner is liable to pay the same under the Settlement. Shri Walavalkar the learned Counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner would make all the payment to the employees provided the conditions in the Settlement are complied with by the employees in accordance with the Labour Court's Order. In view of this I am not inclined to quash and set aside the order of the Labour Court. However, I am inclined to modify the said order by adding the following clause in the operative part of the order in Clause (2) "subject to compliance with the conditions mentioned in the settlement dated 20-8-1984." 4.It is clarified that the employees who comply with the conditions in the settlement will alone be entitled to get the benefits of the order dated 23-11-1992 passed by the Labour Court. It is further clarified that in case the employees have been paid, a suitable adjustment would be made by the Council and the employee shall not object such adjustment. Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute as above. 5.Certified copy is expedited. Rule made absolute. -----