IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15361 of 1999 Between: The General Manager (P), M/s. Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Kothagudem, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Chandra Vihar, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Branch Secretary, Godavari Loya Boggu Gani Karmika Sangham (IFTU), Yellandu, Khammam District, PIN 507 123. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms.V.Uma Devi Counsel for the Respondents : None. The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Ms.V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one entered appearance for respondent No.2. The petitioner, who represents the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem, Khammam District, felt aggrieved by the award passed by respondent No.1, whereby it purported to allow certain claims made on behalf of four trainees of the petitioner-company through the Secretary of respondent No.2-Union. The said four individuals were provisionally selected for different posts in the petitioner-company and were directed to report duty for by the General Manager (Personnel) by order, dated 21.03.1990. They underwent training from April 1990 to July 1990 at ITC Manuguru and from July 1990 to September 1990 at Yellandu. From October 1990 to December 1990 and from January 1991 to March 1991, they received training at Manuguru and Yellandu, respectively. Subsequently, they were posted at Yellandu as ‘D’ Grade E.P. Fitters by the office order dt.15.04.1991 of the petitioner, after completion of their training period. Respondent No.2 made claims for House Rent Allowance (HRA), Travelling Allowance (TA), Dearness Allowance (DA) and Settling Allowance (SA) on behalf of these four workmen during the above-mentioned training period. These claims were resisted by the petitioner-company. However, by the impugned award, some of the claims were purportedly allowed by respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the four workmen are not entitled to HRA, TA, and SA. A perusal of the award shows that respondent No.1 relied on Clause 1.3 of the Travelling Allowance Rules and held that the said rule permits payment of TA to trainees also, besides regular employees. However, having given the said finding, respondent No.1 has confined his award only to DA. In para 11 of the award, respondent No.1 stated as under: “In the result, an Award is passed holding that the petitioner-workmen are entitled to Dearness Allowance during the on job training period as per Rules. They are not entitled to Settling Allowance.” From the above reproduced portion of the award, it is clear that though claims were made in respect of HRA, TA and SA, the award was passed only in respect of DA. Learned counsel has not seriously disputed the entitlement of the four workmen for DA in accordance with the Rules. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by respondent No.1. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 27.12.1999, is vacated and WPMP.No.18909 of 1999 is dismissed. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated:30.12.2008 GJ