1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6669/2008 State of Rajasthan vs. Bhartiya Mining Vibhag Karamchari Sangh & Anr. Date of Order :: 11.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Rishi Vaishnav, for the petitioner. ... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the award dated 21.3.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour court, Udaipur answering a reference made to it by appropriate government under notification dated 20.10.2000 in the terms that whether the stoppage of filed allowance in a tune of Rs. 25 to the workmen who are represented by General Secretary, Bhartiya Mining Vibhag Karamchari Sangh ( BMC), Near Ramchandra Champalal Dharamshala, Udaipur as filed allowance by the employer Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Udaipur is valid and proper? If not, then for what relief the workmen are entitled? Learned labour court after considering the entire material available on record reached at the conclusion that the payment of field allowance to the workmen is a service condition prescribed under IV Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that could have not been altered without giving a notice as prescribed under Section 9A of 2 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1947). While assailing validity of the award aforesaid the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the filed allowance was stopped after getting adequate approval from the Government of Rajasthan and also after giving a notice to the employees. It is also stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that field allowance was stopped at the demand of the workmen themselves, and therefore, there was no need for giving any notice as required under Section 9A of the Act of 1947. Heard counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the field allowance is a service condition as prescribed under Schedule IV of the Act of 1947, and as such, that could have not been withdrawn without giving a notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947 as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen reported in 1975 SC 1856. In the instant matter it is stated by the respondents that compliance of the provisions of Section 9A was made by giving notice, however, the statement is not supported by any evidence and as such the finding given by the labour court that no such notice was given does not require any interference. So far as the argument that the field allowance was discontinued at the request of the union representing the 3 workmen is concerned that is also not proved from the evidence. It is true that the employer started certain other allowance for the employees, however, that in no manner empowers for withdrawing the benefit earlier given unilaterally or at least without adhereing the mandatory provision of Section 9A of the Act of 1947. In view of whatever stated above I do not find any error in the award impugned that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '