1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1782/1995. : : Kota Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kota Vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Kota & Anr. : : Date of Order 26.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr. Anurag Agarwal for the petitioner. Mr. Ghanshyam Singh for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by Industrial Tribunal, Kota dated 24.8.1994 by which the reference was answered on the question whether the respondent-workman would be entitled to special allowance for discharging the duties of Assistant Accountant and action of respondents in not paying special allowance was legal and justified. Learned Industrial Tribunal on the basis of evidence that was adduced by both the parties held that respondent-workman actually discharged the duties on the post of Assistant Accountant and that he would be entitled to special allowance @ Rs.125/- for the period from 2 10.9.1985 to 30.6.1986 and Rs.200/- for the period from 1.7.1986 to 30.5.1991. 3. Shri Anurag Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the award on the premise that there was no post of Assistant Accountant in the branch where the petitioner was posted and cited the transfer order dated 29.4.1988. Learned counsel argued that petitioner by the aforesaid order transferred from the post of Office Accountant (Second) of Kota Branch to the post of Clerk in the Head Office (Manager) (Operating) Section. It was argued that Manager of the Branch where the petitioner was posted erroneously passed an order by which the respondent-workman was required to discharge the duties of Assistant Accountant but without a duly sanctioned post he could not ask for special pay on the post of Assistant Accountant, therefore, impugned order be set aside. 4. Shri Ghanshyam Singh, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that learned Tribunal on the examination and analysis of evidence has clearly held that documents that were produced before it proved that respondent was asked to work on the post of 3 Assistant Accountant and the post of Accountant (Second) was nothing but the post of Assistant Accountant. Any person posted as Accountant (Second) is in control of Accountant (First). Industrial Tribunal found that conditions of service of the employees working with the Cooperative bank were governed by agreement between the employees and Management of the Bank. It was in the settlement arrived between the Union and the Management that demand relating to payment of special allowance to the persons of clerical cadre posted from time to time as Assistant Accountant/Accountant (Second) was accepted. It was argued that what post is created and with nomenclature, was to be decided by petitioner-bank. The respondent having actually discharged the duties on the post of Assistant Accountant has rightly been allowed the payment of Rs.13,012/- for the aforesaid period as special allowance. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that learned Tribunal not only examined the terms of settlement between the Union and the Bank, but also the order dated 10.9.1985 issued by Manager of the Bank in which the respondent was posted. It was by this order the respondent was required to 4 discharge the duties of Assistant Accountant and in compliance of that order the respondent worked actually. The witness produced on behalf of Management namely; Hameer also admitted that in the bank whenever a clerk was required to discharge duties of Assistant Accountant he was entitled to special allowance and this was owing to settlement between the Union and the Bank. The Tribunal has discussed the documents and other evidence in a great detail, therefore, this is a finding of fact that the respondent worked on the post of Assistant Accountant. No such perversity is found therein as would justify interference by this Court. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.4.