JUDGMENT : K.M THAKER, J. The dispute and objections raised by the petitioner-Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service against direction to pay amount of Rs. 17,122/- is pending for adjudication since last about 9 years. 2. The petitioner-Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service has taken out this petition against order dated 22.01.2007, passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabd in Recovery Application No. 1683/92, whereby the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner-Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service to pay sum of Rs. 17,122/- towards the claim of the respondent and also directed the petitioner-Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service to pay 3000/- towards cost. 3. The Court admitted the petition vide order dated 16.10.2007 While admitting the petition, the Court directed the Corporation to pay the said amount to the workman subject to final result in the petition and asked the respondent workman to file an undertaking to refund the amount, if AMTS succeeds in the petition. 4. From the facts of the case, it has emerged that the respondent is employee of Petitioner-AMTS and the relevant time she was working as Adrema Op cum Senior Clerk. She participated in Chase Championship for girls which was conducted at Salen and in the National Open Ladies Chase tournament which was conducted at Sangli. 5. In the formal competition, she was appointed as Manager and in the later competition she was asked to participate in the competition on behalf of the Gujarat Chase Association. 6. So as to attend the said competitions, she had asked for special leave for the period from 22.04.1992 to 07.05.1992 and 08.05.1992 to 20.05.1992 7. Thereafter, when she reported for duty on 21.05.1992, she was not allowed to resume duty. She was asked to report for duty on 22.05.1992 and when she reported for duty in 22.05.1992, she was allowed to resume her duty. 8. In this background, she relied on the office order no. 339 according which she would be entitled for salary for the period of special leave. 9. She raised the claim in view of the fact that the petitioner-Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service had deducted her salary for the period from 22.04.1992 to 21.05.1992 10. Since the petitioner employer deducted the salary for the aforesaid-period despite the fact that she had sought special leave and participated in the competitions, she raised the claim for recovering the deducted amount. 11. Since the petitioner employer deducted the salary for the aforesaid-period despite the fact that she had sought special leave and participated in the competitions, she raised the claim for recovering the deducted amount. 11. According to the claimant-workman, the petitioner-Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service had given similar treatment when she had proceeded on special leave during the period from 13.05.1990 to 22.05.1990 12. The learned Labour Court considered the said claim of the respondent. 13. The learned Labour Court also considered the office order no. 339 and the facts and circumstances on account which the respondent had availed special leave. The learned Labour Court also relied on an Arbitration Award passed by Industrial Tribunal in Case No. 6/91. 14. The learned Labour Court also took into consideration office order no. 348, 341 and other circulars issued by the competent authority in respect of the subject matter. 15. After considering such material and the grounds of objection of the petitioner-Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service against the claim, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the claim made by the respondent-workman deserves to be granted. 16. After considering such material, the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner-Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service to pay sum of Rs. 17,122/- towards the claim of the respondent and also directed the petitioner-Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service to pay 3000/- towards cost. 17. Having examined the award and after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner in present petition, this Court is of the view that there is no justification to entertain present petition against the award of petty among. 18. Besides this, Ordinarily, this Court does not exercise discretionary jurisdiction and entertain writ petitions against award of petty amount (Up to 30,000/-). 19. As mentioned earlier, any strong reason and justification to entertain present petition against the award and against such petty amount is not made out. 20. The Court does not find any reason or ground to exercise its jurisdiction against such award. 21. The Court considered the fact that the respondent workman had participated in sports competition and had sought/availed special leave for the said purpose, which was granted. In this view of the matter, the learned Labour Court has found the said deduction of amount from her salary, unjustified and arbitrary. 22. 21. The Court considered the fact that the respondent workman had participated in sports competition and had sought/availed special leave for the said purpose, which was granted. In this view of the matter, the learned Labour Court has found the said deduction of amount from her salary, unjustified and arbitrary. 22. This Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction against said conclusion and decision by the Labour Court, more so when the amount in question is petty amount. 23. It goes without saying that the award by the learned Labour Court is passed in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, and therefore, such directions would not amount to any precedent so far as administration of the petitioner-Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service is concerned. 24. For the foregoing reason, the Court is not inclined to disturb the award impugned in present petition. The petition fails and is rejected. Rule is discharged.