Judgment 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 4.9.2006. Annexure P.3 rejecting the claim of the workman for uniform allowance, night allowance, washing allowance and increase in basic wages with dearness and other allowances and bonus at the rate of 20%. Further prayer is for 18% interest on the above claims. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Machinist in the factory of respondent No. 2 on 1.9.1976. He was dismissed from service on 27.9.1993. He raised an industrial dispute, on which award dated 9.6.2000, Annexure P2 was passed reinstating the workman with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The petitioner filed an application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, `the Act) claiming consequential benefits. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been held to be entitled to Rs. 3,75,670/- for back wages, LTA, HRA and VDA but his claim for uniform allowance, night allowance, washing allowance and increase in basic wages with dearness and other allowances and bonus at the rate of 20%, has been rejected. It has been further stated in the petition that the management has filed CWP No. 16718 of 2006 to the extent the order is in favour of the workman. Contention raised is that rejection of claim of the workman for uniform allowance, night allowance, washing allowance and increase in basic wages with dearness and other allowances and bonus at the rate of 20%, was not justified. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Gammon India Limited v. Niranjan Dass, 1984(48) FLR 310, laying down as to now back wages have to be calculated if the workman remained in service uninterrupted. The workman was also held entitled to leave encashment and other benefits if the other workmen in the same category were paid the same and 12% interest was also granted. We find that in the impugned order, the Labour Court held that deductions towards income tax under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were not justified as the amount had to be spread over. The workman was also held to be entitled to such of the allowances as were part of wages such as increments etc. We find that in the impugned order, the Labour Court held that deductions towards income tax under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were not justified as the amount had to be spread over. The workman was also held to be entitled to such of the allowances as were part of wages such as increments etc. but the workman was not entitled to the allowances which are paid when a workman is actually working such as night shift allowance, uniform allowance etc. In paras 14 and 15 of the award, it was held "14. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court in Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore v. Industrial Tribunal, Karnataka, Bangalore and another, 1990 (2) SLR 711 : AIR 1990 SC 1080, that night shift allowance could not be paid in cases of reinstatement but other allowances which were included in the definition of `wages were to be granted. It was held in the said case that travelling allowance could not be granted because it was acted with actual travelling. However, in the instant case there is a different because here the company agreed to pay fixed LTA every year as cash and there was no agreement that the same would be paid only if the worker provided actual proof of travelling. Since it was not agreed otherwise, the travelling allowance would be taken to be the part of the wages as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. Bonus is excluded from the definition in the Act itself. 15. Leave encashment can also not be granted because leave has to be earned by actual working and only then it can be encashed. Similarly uniform allowance has to be declined, as uniform is to be worn when the worker is actually working in the factory." 4. We do not find any merit in the case of the petitioner. The Labour Court rightly held that benefits or allowances in question could be given only when a workman was actually working and award for continuity of services and back wages did not cover the said allowances. The Labour Court has relied upon judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Bharat Electronics (supra). 5. In the judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner i.e. Gammon India Limited (supra), the matter did not arise out of proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act and a specific order for leave encashment etc. The Labour Court has relied upon judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Bharat Electronics (supra). 5. In the judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner i.e. Gammon India Limited (supra), the matter did not arise out of proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act and a specific order for leave encashment etc. was passed, while in the award in respect of which application was filed by the workman, there was no specific order for such benefits. Proceedings under Section 33C(2) being in the nature of execution, the Labour Court could not have given the benefits not specifically given in the main award. In Bharat Electronics (supra) relied upon in the impugned award, referring to Section 2(rr) of the Act, it was held that only allowances which were not contingent on actual working had included in the compensation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The said judgment being fully applicable, the view taken by the Labour Court cannot be held to be erroneous. 6. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.