Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- In this appeal by special leave, the question that arises for consideration is the correctness of the award of construction allowance to the operational staff.

2. By its order dated June 1, 1967, the Central Government referred for adjudication to the National Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, various disputes. We are concerned in this appeal only with dispute No. 5 (a) namely -

"Should construction allowance be payable to any categories of regular employees for extension of existing projects after the operation stage has commenced? If so, to what extent and to which categories of regular employees?"

The unions claimed payment of construction allowance to the operational staff also while the management contested their claim. The Tribunal by its award dated January 27, 1968, in Reference No. NIT-2 of 1967 has held that construction allowance should be payable to all categories of regular employees at any station where work of extension of the existing project, after the operation stage has commenced, is going on i.e., at any station where there is both construction work and operational work. The Tribunal has further directed such payment to be made uniformly to all categories of regular employees posted at that station, including school teachers and welfare centre workers. According to the directions given by the Tribunal, construction allowance is payable to all categories of regular employees who are posted at any station where both construction work and operational work are being carried on.

3. The learned Attorney-General, on behalf of the appellant, urged that construction allowance is paid only to those employees, who are actually on the site where the construction works are going on. Such payment, it is pointed out, was made to compensate those employees for lack of civic amenities at the site, where construction work has been started and is going on. According to him, the operational staff, who are posted in townships enjoy all the amenities provided therein and hence are not eligible for payment of this construction allowance. In support of this contention, the learned Attorney-General referred us to the circular issued by the management as well as the answers given by the witnesses. According to him, the direction given by the Tribunal, apart from putting the appellant to considerable expense, are contrary to the evidence adduced in the case and even the claim made by the workmen.

4. Mr. Sen Gupta, learned counsel for the workmen, pointed out that the unions had placed materials before the Tribunal to show that even certain employees doing operational work and who had nothing to do with construction work, were being paid construction allowance. Therefore, the plea of the appellant that it is only the employees, who are actuary posted and work at the construction site that are eligible for such payment, is contrary even to the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the relevant averments in the unions written statements as well as the answer, given by the appellant witnesses themselves and urged that the very limited relief granted by the Tribunal is justified.

The above reducible allowance shall be admissible to such of the employees only as arc in receipt of the construction allowance and continue to be stationed at these places".

5. At this stage we may mention that the learned Attorney-General stated that even employees posted at headquarters are paid construction allowance provided they have to go to the construction site during the pro-cess of construction.

6. It is now necessary to refer to the circulars issued by the management as well as the material part of the pleadings. Annexure I to the Special Leave Petition regarding construction allowance is as follows:-

"DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION REVISION OF PAY SCALES.

"Construction allowance granted in view of the arduous and exacting nature of construction duties shall continue to be paid at places