- (1.)THROUGH this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of the Labour Court passed under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act disallowing her claim for Mess Allowance and Conveyance Allowance.
(2.)A few facts of the case in brief are as under : the petitioner was appointed in the Acworth Leprosy Hospital as a Nurse in 1971. Her appointment letter stipulated that she would be paid a particular pay plus uniform allowance, special allowance, washing allowance, dearness allowance, dearness pay plus additional allowance for messing. The Acworth Leprosy Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the hospital), which was an autonomous body, was taken over by the Bombay Municipal Corporation-respondent No. 2 herein, and the mess allowance which was being paid to the petitioner was discontinued w. e. f. 1-6-1987. The petitioner has informed that this allowance was discontinued since the nursing staff working in the dispensaries were not entitled to the allowance. Similarly, the uniform allowance and conveyance allowance payable to her was discontinued.
(3.)THE petitioner, therefore, approached the Labour Court by filing an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 18-1-1985. She claimed an amount of Rs. 50,607. 36 being the aggregate of the mess allowance, conveyance allowance and uniform allowance as well as interest payable on these counts. The respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the hospital was not a department of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and that since the petitioner was working in the operation theatre attached to the Out Patients Department (OPD) and not the hospital she not eligible for the messing allowance. It was contended that the messing allowance which was paid to her till 31-5-1987 was due to inadvertence and, therefore, no amount would be paid to her in future as she was attached to the dispensary and clinic and not to the hospital. The same reason was put forth for stopping conveyance allowance. The uniform allowance had already been paid to the petitioner and, therefore, the respondent-Corporation stated that the claim did not survive.