JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge is made by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Vadodara in Reference IT No.44 of 2000 with the brief facts, which are as follow: 1.1 The respondent Union raised the demand claiming conveyance allowance for those employees, who are getting the cycle allowance with effect from 01.04.1998 at the rate of Rs.75 per month claiming the same on the basis of the Government Resolution. 1.2 It was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Vadodara by Reference No.44 of 2000. 1.3 The respondent Union filed a Statement of Claim contending that the petitioner-Corporation passed a Resolution to follow and implement the Resolutions and Circulars of the Government and the Circulars issued by the Government providing conveyance allowance to cover the expenses for ‘to and fro’ journey from office to residence and that will not entitle the person to get the other allowance. Accordingly, the Corporation passed the Resolution to pay the conveyance allowance, however, the petitioner Corporation interpreted it in the manner that the Resolution would not permit payment of conveyance allowance to those workmen, who are getting cycle allowance. The cycle allowance was to the tune of Rs.45 per month and a conveyance allowance was Rs.75 per month. 1.4 The demand was raised by the employees, who were paid the conveyance allowance at the rate of Rs.75 per month with effect from 01.04.1998. The Union prayed for the cost also the amount with 18% interest. 2. Petitioner Corporation filed the written statement pointing out that the demand was misconceived. Corporation passed a Resolution to provide the conveyance allowance to those employees, who are residing at a distance of more than one kilometer from the place of service and they are not provided any commutation facility of any vehicle of the Corporation. 2.1 This conveyance allowance was for those employees, who were not getting either cycle allowance or allowance in form of fuel (petrol or diesel). They were given the option for conveyance allowance in lieu of cycle allowance in accordance with the Circular dated 23.06.1998 and the employee exercised the option in favour of cycle allowance. It was therefore, emphasized that they cannot get two allowances of the same kind one for the vehicle and another for the conveyance. Therefore, the Corporation prayed for rejection of Reference. It was therefore, emphasized that they cannot get two allowances of the same kind one for the vehicle and another for the conveyance. Therefore, the Corporation prayed for rejection of Reference. 2.2 The Corporation also relied on the Resolutions dated 20.05.1998 issued by the Government of Gujarat, 01.07.1998 issued by the petitioner Corporation, 11.05.1999 issued by the Corporation and 29.06.1998 issued by the Corporation once again and on an agenda dated 23.06.1999 and clarification dated 23.06.1999. 3. The Industrial Tribunal by its award and order dated 14.02.2006 published on 05.04.2006 allowed the Reference partly and directed the Corporation to pay separate conveyance allowances with effect from 01.04.1998 to those workmen, who are getting cycle allowance as a part of their duty within the period of 60 days from the date of publication of award with cost of Rs.1000/-. Hence, this grievance and the present petition with the following prayers: “6… (A) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order calling for the record and proceedings of reference IT No.44 of 2000 dated 14th February 2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Vadodara and after pursuing the same, be pleased to quash and set aside the Award and Order passed in reference IT No.44 of 2000 dated 14th February 2006. (B) Be pleased to pass such other and further Orders as may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (C) Be pleased to Award costs of this petition. (D) During the admission, pendency, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the Award and Order passed in reference IT No.44 of 2000 dated 14th February 2006.” 4. Other side was issued the notice and pending the petition, the Court had granted ad-interim stay in terms of para 6(D). This petition was also admitted on 21.02.2007. 5. This petition when was taken up for final hearing the Court has heard the learned advocate, Mr.Pandya for the petitioner and learned advocate, Mr.Darshit Thakkar for respondent, who both along the line of their respective pleadings argued before this Court. 6. This petition was also admitted on 21.02.2007. 5. This petition when was taken up for final hearing the Court has heard the learned advocate, Mr.Pandya for the petitioner and learned advocate, Mr.Darshit Thakkar for respondent, who both along the line of their respective pleadings argued before this Court. 6. According to the learned advocate, Mr.Pandya, the transport allowance once is given as per the Resolution of the State Government and the option is also offered by the concerned employee, he cannot be doubly benefited by asking for the amount of Rs.75/- which has been given to those employees, who are not availing the cycle allowance or the petrol/diesel allowance. He, relying on different Resolutions of the Corporation and the State has urged that the there is a need of interference on the part of the Court concerned. 7. As against that the learned advocate, Mr.Darshit Thakkar has urged that the two allowances are mutually exclusive in as much as the transport allowance was given by way of a Resolution of the State Government dated 20.05.1998. There was a Resolution of 11.05.1995 which had spoken of those of them getting the cycle allowance to be given the transport allowance. However, according to him, those of them, who are getting the conveyance allowance for commuting from their residence to the office are also travelling in the field by cycle and the cycle allowance was basically meant for those of the employees and hence, these two allowances are not irreconcilable aspects. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not endorsed to the interpretation which has been made by the Corporation and has allowed the award and the order. 8. The Resolution dated 07.01.1998 of the Government of Gujarat, Finance Department speaks of the sympathetic consideration for grant of allowance at par with Central Government to its employees and hence, State Government’s employees are considered entitled to the transport allowance at the following rates: No. Pay Scales of the Employees Rules of Transport Allowance per month (In Rupees) A-1/A Class City Other places 1. Employees drawing pay in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-13,500 or above. Employees drawing pay in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-13,500 or above. 800 400 2 Employees drawing pay in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500 or above but, below the scale of Rs.8000-13500 400 200 3 Employees drawing pay below the scale of Rs.6500-10500 100 75 8.1 This grant of transport allowance is subjected to the furnishing of the certificate by the Head of the Department/Head of the Office that the employee is not residing within one kilometer from the place of work or within a campus housing. The grant of the transport allowance is regulated subject to the following conditions: “(i) The Cities referred to as “A” and “A-1” in these orders shall be the same as those classified as such for the purpose of Compensatory Local Allowance (CLA) in terms of the orders issued separately regulating grant of Compensatory Local Allowance to the State Government Employees. The term “Other places” may include any place were offices/formations of State Government are located.” (ii) The Allowance shall not be admissible to those employees who are residing within a distance of one kilometer from the place of work or within a campus housing the places of work and residence.” 8.2 The allowance is not admissible to those employees, who have been provided with the facility of Government Transport. If a person’s absence is exceeding 30 days due to leave or training then also this is not admissible. This Clause (vi) provides that in terms of the Government Resolution, Finance Department dated 05.01.1979, as amended from time to time, the conveyance allowance is admissible to such of the State Government employees born on regular establishment as are blind or are orthopedically handicapped. Consequent upon coming into force of this orders, such conveyance allowance shall be abolished and instead, all such employees be paid the transport allowance at double the normal rates prescribed under the orders. However, such handicapped employees, if have been provided the Government accommodation within the distance one kilometer from the place of work or within campus, the allowance shall be admissible at normal rate. This is not to be allowed in case of the employees, who have been provided with the facility of the Government Transport. 9. On 29.06.1998, the Municipal Corporation decided to make available to this transport allowance to its employees. This is not to be allowed in case of the employees, who have been provided with the facility of the Government Transport. 9. On 29.06.1998, the Municipal Corporation decided to make available to this transport allowance to its employees. At Clause (10) it had said that those of the employees, who are getting the petrol allowance or the vehicle allowance, they will not be getting this nor will those who are getting cycle allowance. Only those of the employees, who have not been getting any kind of allowance or petrol allowance, they shall be given the transport allowance. 10. On 11.05.1999 the Municipal Corporation has also come out with another Circular, which says that those of the employees, who are desirous of getting the transport allowance instead of the cycle allowance, they shall be entitled to such transport allowance, which will be available to them from 01.04.1998. 11. On 23.06.1999 the Corporation has come out with another Circular to say that those of them, who are getting the cycle allowance and have given an option for conveyance allowance or transport allowance, a clarification is required in the following manner: “Such employees shall also continue to do their work on a job, however, if they stop attending to the work in the area their transport allowance shall be stopped.” 12. In Reference IT No.44 of 2000 the Union had taken up the cause by urging that most of them, who are using the cycle and getting the cycle allowance of Rs.45/- per month are not getting Rs.75/- as transport allowance from 01.04.1998. Those of them who are going on cycle are the labourers, helpers, cleaners belonging to the Class-IV employees. The grievance was that most of those, who are getting Rs.75/- per month are not moving in the field whereas the Class-IV employees are going to the fields also on their bicycles. Eventually, when negotiation did not work out, the Reference was sent to the Industrial Tribunal where the main emphasis is that two kind of allowances to one set of employees cannot be granted. It could be either vehicle allowance or the transport allowance. 13. On the part of the petitioner, it had been argued that physically handicapped people are getting double benefits. Those of them, who do not reside within one kilometer of the area also will be getting the transport allowance. It could be either vehicle allowance or the transport allowance. 13. On the part of the petitioner, it had been argued that physically handicapped people are getting double benefits. Those of them, who do not reside within one kilometer of the area also will be getting the transport allowance. The cycle allowance was given as a part of their visit to different areas and fields as a part of requirement of their visit during service hours. It is given to them for performing the duties in the field and not for their transport from home to workplace essentially as in the case of transport allowance. Once they arrive from their residence on cycle, they shall need to perform the visit, whereas the conveyance allowance is for commuting from the residence to the place of work and back. The cycle allowance is given to all those persons for number of years whenever they go for the field work. 14. The Industrial Tribunal had noted that there is nothing on the record indicating as to how the cycle allowance is being given. It was for the maintenance of the cycle and the cycle reparation that Rs.45/- is given to those employees. This has been made available to the Class-IV employees after once they remained present on the job. It is not being given to these employees of Class-IV for commuting from their residence to the place of service and back home. The State Government when has directed conveyance/transport allowance to be given to all the employees by a sympathetic consideration at par with the Central Government, it had decided for the benefit of the State Government employees and the transport allowance was given to all the employees and it was not admissible for those, who were residing within a distance of one kilometer from the place of work. This has nowhere excluded those employees, who have already worked and got the cycle allowance. If the cycle allowance was given to them from much before essentially for the reparation and also for their performance of duty once they already are on a job and for them to attend to the field visits as also to commute to different work as Class-IV employees and two allowances cannot be mixed up by the employer. 15. If the cycle allowance was given to them from much before essentially for the reparation and also for their performance of duty once they already are on a job and for them to attend to the field visits as also to commute to different work as Class-IV employees and two allowances cannot be mixed up by the employer. 15. In the opinion of this Court, the Industrial Tribunal has committed no error at all when it has rightly, unequivocally and with desired clarity held that these two allowances are mutually exclusive for the reason that one is meant for commutation from home to the service and back, whereas the other one essentially is meant for the employees of Class-IV who reach to the place of the work and are expected to discharge their duties and perform the same using this as a vehicle. It is given to the employees of Class-IV who are to also perform their duties visiting different places. No error is committed. The interpretation made of the base Resolution in no manner requires any interference. 16. This Court had also examined this from a different angle by finding out the value of monthly bus pass of BRTS in Ahmedabad. At present, it is Rs.2000/- for 3 months and hence, amount of Rs.667/- per month. Noticing the year in which such a Resolution was passed by the State Government, conveyance charge given to the employee is Rs.75/- per month. If a person travels by bus to reach to the place of service, he gets Rs.75/- sitting in a bus or using any of this conveyance and the person who uses his bicycle, and uses his physical strength and also helps the environment is given less amount. He also needs to continue to use his cycle for other work unlike those employees who would ask for travel expense if he needs to visit anywhere as a part of his service. 17. Again, this vehicle allowance was available much before this conveyance allowance was declared as rightly held by Tribunal and noticing the nature of duties of Class-IV employees, if the same was given, they cannot be excluded from the benefits of conveyance charges. 18. Accordingly, this petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India deserves no indulgence and the same is accordingly dismissed. 18. Accordingly, this petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India deserves no indulgence and the same is accordingly dismissed. The order of the Industrial Tribunal directing the amount, to be paid to the concerned employees after the resolution having been accepted by the Corporation from 29.06.1998, shall be given to them within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.