JUDGMENT Subhash B. Adi, J This petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2003 in Application No.17 /2002 passed by the Additional Labour Court Bangalore. 2. Respondent workman had filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, inter-alia seeking direction for computing the arrears of bonus, shift allowance, leave benefits, national and festival holidays allowance, medical allowance, annual leave with wages allowance, casual leave allowance, repast allowance, shift allowance, mechanical allowance, uniform allowance, stitching allowance, washing allowance, shoe allowance, bata allowance and incentive allowance due to the applicant from 28.8.1979 to 16.4.1998 as per the various Government Orders, Rules and Regulations of K.S.R.T.C. to Rs.74,849/- or more along with interest at the rate of Rs.18%p.a. from 28.8.1979. 3. It is alleged that, the respondent workman was appointed as helper on 24.1.1978 on a salary of Rs.150/- per month. He was removed from service with effect from 25.6.1979. He sought for conciliation of his dispute and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court in Ref.No.170/1986 passed an award on 24.4.1997 directing the management to reinstate the respondent to the original post along with 85% of back wages with all consequential benefits. The said award was challenged by the Management in Writ Petition No.27971/1997. The Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 13.11.2000 modifying the back wages to the tune of 50% as against 85%. It is alleged that, as per the Government Order, KIMCO employees were absorbed in the petitioner Corporation with effect from 1.1.1996 and the employees absorbed are entitled for all the service benefits. It is further alleged that, though the award has been passed for consequential benefits, the same are not paid to the respondent workman. 4. The said claim petition was registered by the Corporation alleging that, the petitioner has been paid 50% back wages to the tune of Rs.l,30,940/- and he has been reinstated in the service. It is further alleged that, the KIMCO employees were not entitled for washing allowance, shoe allowance, uniform allowance etc. Further alleged that, in terms of the award, the claim of the respondent workman has been settled. 5. The Labour Court on adjudication of the said application held that, the respondent workman is entitled for Rs.65,586/- towards shoe allowance, uniform allowance, stitching allowance, washing allowance, medical allowance, bonus, repast allowance and earned leave allowance. Further alleged that, in terms of the award, the claim of the respondent workman has been settled. 5. The Labour Court on adjudication of the said application held that, the respondent workman is entitled for Rs.65,586/- towards shoe allowance, uniform allowance, stitching allowance, washing allowance, medical allowance, bonus, repast allowance and earned leave allowance. It is this order of the Labour Court is called in question. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the respondent was removed from service on the ground of remaining unauthorised absent. The respondent had raised a dispute and it was adjudicated by the Labour Court and award was passed. In terms of the award, which was modified by this Court, the petitioner was entitled for 50% back wages and consequential benefits. The respondent in terms of the said award has been reinstated and the back wages and other benefits have been paid. The claim of the respondent for shoe allowance, uniform allowance, washing allowance, stitching allowance earned leave allowance, medical allowance arid bonus cannot be granted, as the respondent has not worked during the said period. When the respondent has not worked for the relevant period, the question of giving shoe allowance, washing allowance, uniform allowance etc. does not arise. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, the said allowances are provided to an employees who have actually worked during the relevant period When an employee has remained absent and was not worked, there is no question to award uniform or shoe allowance or claiming medical allowance, which is to be paid against the actual claim. It is also submitted that, the earned leave is granted only to a person who is actually worked during the said period. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of this Court reported in K. R. Tyagi Vs. National Textile Corporation and Another and submitted that, leave can be earned in respect of the period for which the actual service is rendered in the Corporation. If the employee has not worked, he would not be entitled to earned leave. Similarly, the employees of the Corporation are entitled for reimbursement of the actual cost of traveling allowance, medical allowance and no medical allowance can be granted on the deemed illness or notional illness. If the employee has not worked, he would not be entitled to earned leave. Similarly, the employees of the Corporation are entitled for reimbursement of the actual cost of traveling allowance, medical allowance and no medical allowance can be granted on the deemed illness or notional illness. By relying on the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, undisputedly, the respondent had not worked during the said period and granting of said allowances also does not arise. She relied on the findings of the Labour Court in page 25 wherein the Labour Court has referred to the settlement between the KIM CO Company and the KSRYC. Under the said settlement, the employees absorbed from the KIMCO Company are not entitled for leave encashment allowance. It is also submitted that, the monitory benefits, which are to be awarded are not the actual amount; but are subject to the employee using the said facilities for the purpose of discharging of his duty and not to the employees who have not worked during the said period. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, award specifically states that, the respondent is entitled for 85% of the back wages with consequential benefits. She relied on the definition of wages and submitted that, the definition of wages includes the allowance, which can be compute in terms of money. It is submitted that, if the respondent would have been continued in the service, he would have been entitled for all those benefits and the said benefits can be compute in terms of money. She further submitted that, any monitory benefits, which can be compute in terms of money, are required to be granted in terms of Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this regard, she relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. K.L. Kharbanda and also relied on another judgment in the matter of Bennett Coleman Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Punya Priya Das Gupta and submitted that, Section 33(c)(2) includes monitory as well as non-monitory benefits. The non-monitory benefits which can be computed in terms of money are required to be awarded. She also submitted that, the definition of wages includes all the allowances, which can be compute in terms of money. 8. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Punya Priya Das Gupta and submitted that, Section 33(c)(2) includes monitory as well as non-monitory benefits. The non-monitory benefits which can be computed in terms of money are required to be awarded. She also submitted that, the definition of wages includes all the allowances, which can be compute in terms of money. 8. Relying on these two judgments, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, if the respondent had been continued in the employment, he would have been entitled for all these benefits and now these benefits can be compute in terms of money. Relying on the findings of the Labour Court, she further submitted that, all these allowances have been computed by the Labour Court and the said allowances have been awarded as consequential benefits in terms of the award passed by the Labour Court. 9. The short question that arises for consideration in this regard is; “Whether the allowances relating to uniform, shoe, washing, stitching, medical can be paid to an employee who has not worked during the said period?” 10. In this case, it is not in dispute that, the respondent has raised a dispute against the termination of his service. The said dispute was disposed of by awarding reinstatement with 85% back wages along with consequential benefits. Same was modified by this Court reducing the back wages to 50% instead of 85%. In all other respects, the award of the Labour Court was confirmed by this Court. It is also not in dispute that, the respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 25.6. I 979 and subsequently the Company in which the respondent was employed was taken Over by the Government and the employees working in the said Company were absorbed by the Corporation. In terms of the settlement in relation to the absorption, under Clause 16 of the settlement states as under: “The encashment of Privilege Leave will be extended to those employees who have at their credit of minimum of 60 days privilege Leave. The Privilege Leave accumulated over and above 60 days not exceeding 75 days will allowed for encashment once in a calendar year. However, due to financial constrains, the encashment is not being allowed and it will continue till the financial position of the Company improves”. 11. This agreement was entered into by the Corporation and the Management on 23.8.1990. The Privilege Leave accumulated over and above 60 days not exceeding 75 days will allowed for encashment once in a calendar year. However, due to financial constrains, the encashment is not being allowed and it will continue till the financial position of the Company improves”. 11. This agreement was entered into by the Corporation and the Management on 23.8.1990. With effect from 23.8.1990 admittedly, the leave encashment was not paid. Insofar as absorbed employees are concerned, reinstatement was ordered by the Labour Court by its award dated 24.4.1997. The said award was modified by this Court on 13.11.2000. Consequent upon which, the respondent has been reinstated and has been continued in service. It is also not disputed by both the learned counsel that on reinstatement petitioner has been given the wages in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable to the absorbed employees under the Corporation. The consequential benefits are claimed by the respondent is in respect of a period during which the respondent had not worked. The respondent claims that though he has not worked, still as a consequence of the service benefits the allowance which were required to be provided to employees, are required to be given to the respondent, to which the respondent had been denied, have to be given by computing in terms of money. 12. It is necessary to consider as to whether all these allowances could be granted. Insofar as uniform is concerned, the uniform is given to the employee to use the same while he is on duty. Uniform is not given for regular or casual wear of the employee. If the employee is not admittedly on duty or was not worked during the said period, he cannot claim the uniform allowance just because that he has been directed to be reinstated with consequential benefits with continuity of service. Continuity of service does not mean that, a person who has not worked and who was not wearing the uniform is still entitled for uniform allowance for the said period. Similarly, when uniform allowance cannot be granted, the granting of washing and stitching allowance does not arise. 13. As per the rules and regulations of the Corporation, the employee is entitled for the reimbursement of the medical bill. Reimbursement of the medical bill presupposes that, the employee has suffered illness and for which he has spent money. Similarly, when uniform allowance cannot be granted, the granting of washing and stitching allowance does not arise. 13. As per the rules and regulations of the Corporation, the employee is entitled for the reimbursement of the medical bill. Reimbursement of the medical bill presupposes that, the employee has suffered illness and for which he has spent money. Now, what is awarded in so far as medical allowance is concerned, is in terms of the agreement. The medical allowance of Rs. 75/- per month with effect from. 1.4.1990 was agreed to be paid in respect of the employees who are not covered under the ESI Scheme. The said Clause also states that, the reimbursement of the medical bill to the extent of Rs.600/- p.a. was provided to the KIMCO employees. Looking into the said Clause under the agreement, the employees of the KIMCO Company were provided Rs.600/- annually towards medical allowance. And with effect from 1.4.1990, they are paid at Rs. 75/- per month. It cannot be disputed that, till the absorption of the KIMCO employees, they were provided medical allowance ofRs.600/- per annum irrespective of the actual medical claim. Whether the employee has suffered any illness or not, this amount has been fixed against each of the employees. In the said circumstances, the respondent is entitled for the medical allowance in terms of the agreement as well as in terms of the condition of employment with the KIMCO Company. The Labour Court, considering the agreement and also payment of medical allowance to the other employees, has determined the medical allowance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month and I do not find any error committed by the Labour Court in granting the medical allowance. 14. In so far as earned leave is concerned, under Clause-16 of the agreement it is clearly stated that, the financial position of the Company was not sound and the said allowance was not granted. Nevertheless till the agreement was entered into i.e., till 23. 8.1990, employees working otherwise in the KIMCO Company were entitled for the same. But it is only Subsequent to the said period for three years it was frozen and it was not paid. Even under Clause-l6, there is no permanent ban for payment of the earned leave- It is only for temporary period the said allowance was not provided to the employees. But it is only Subsequent to the said period for three years it was frozen and it was not paid. Even under Clause-l6, there is no permanent ban for payment of the earned leave- It is only for temporary period the said allowance was not provided to the employees. It is now submitted that, from 1999 onwards, the allowances have been paid. In this case, the award has been passed on 24.4.1997 and reinstatement was made on 15.4.1998 and admittedly after reinstatement, whatever the benefits the respondent had entitled has been given. 15. Considering the settlement between the KIMCO Company and the KSRTC and also considering that the said allowance was frozen till 1999 , what is now awarded is only Rs.4,531/. Admittedly, the respondent was entitled for the said allowances till 23.8.1990, as per the agreement. Since the respondent was entitled for the said benefit till the date of agreement, I do not find any error in granting the same. 16. Considering the settlement as well as the other monitory benefits awarded by the Labour Court, insofar as allowances such as shoe allowance, uniform allowance, stitching allowance, washing allowance are concerned, they are set aside. The medical allowance, since they are given monthly at the rate of Rs. 75/- irrespective of illness, it is confirmed. Insofar as earned leave is concerned, respondent is entitled till the agreement came into force, is also confirmed. Insofar as bonus is concerned, since the other employees have been given the bonus the respondent is also entitled for the same. 17. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is partly allowed modifying the order passed by the Labour Court by setting aside the allowances relating to shoe allowance, uniform allowance, stitching allowance, washing allowance. In all other respects, the order of the Labour Court is confirmed.