THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1518 of 2004 ORDER: One Sri P.Ramaiah was working as Head Cashier in Guntur Branch of the petitioner-Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him alleging that he was responsible for cash shortage of Rs.26,000/- and that he resorted to acts of misconduct. After issuing notice and conducting departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order, dated 22.11.1999, imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and withdrawing the special allowance. The employee approached the Bank of Baroda Employees’ Union, respondent No.2 herein, which in turn espoused to his cause with the Government. The same resulted in a reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad. It was taken up as I.D.No.9 of 2001. The reference was as to whether the punishment imposed against the employee was proper. The Tribunal passed an award, dated 31.10.2001, upholding the punishment of stoppage of increment, but directing that the special allowance be paid to the employee up to 01.07.2002. The petitioner feels aggrieved by that portion of the award. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. There is no representation for respondent No.2 In the departmental enquiry, the allegation against the employee was proved. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment as mentioned in the previous paragraph. The appropriate Government made a reference to the Tribunal. In its award, the Tribunal found that there was justification for imposition of punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. However, it took exception to the withdrawal of special allowance. The special allowance is paid to an employee whenever he discharges the duties of a Cashier. It is only when the employee has been entrusted with the duties of Cashier that he would become eligible tos be paid the special allowance. It cannot be directed to be paid independent of the nature of duties. Further, the Tribunal did not offer any justification for directing that the allowance be paid up to July, 2002. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the portion of the award which directed payment of special allowance to the employee i.e. P.Ramaiah, is set side. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 31.12.2010. kdl