Judgment In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged an award dated 25.6.98 made by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal in Reference Case 39 of 1994. 2. The facts, pertaining to the writ petition, are briefly as follows :- Two members of the Respondent Union, namely, Sudip Kr. Ghosh and Tapan Kr. Sarkar were appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist of the petitioner on 1st June, 1979 and on 11th July, 1981 respectively. While Tapan Kr. Sarkar was posted in the International Branch of the petitioner, he was redesignated as Clerk-cum-Telex Operator on and from 1st February, 1982 and was granted special benefits pertaining to the duties of Clerk-cum-Telex Operator with effect from 29th December, 1983. 3. Sudip Kr. Ghosh while posted in the international branch of the petitioner was granted special allowance pertaining to the duties of Clerk-cum-Telex Operator with effect from 8th September, 1985. 4. It is contended that the workmen became entitled to special allowance of Rs.145/- per month which was paid to them by the petitioner for the additional duties performed by them as Telex Operators. 5. On account of the modernization of the office of the petitioner, the conventional single unit telex machines were replaced by modern computerized telex machines which were operated by the said workmen, namely, Sudip Kr. Ghosh and Tapan Kr. Sarkar. 6. The workmen claimed higher special allowance at the rate of Rs.350/- per month which was payable to Advance Laser Posting Machine (ALPM) operators. Such claim was made by the workman on the contention that the machines which the workmen were operating were personal telex computer machines. 7. Sudip Kr. Ghosh claimed higher special allowance of Rs.350/- per month with effect from 3rd February, 1989 and Tapan Kr. Sarkar claimed the higher special allowance with effect from 1st March, 1993. 8. It is nobody's case that the concerned workmen in fact, operated ALPM machines. The concerned workmen claimed the said higher special allowance on the basis of Chapter 5 of the first Bipartite Settlement. The petitioner paid the higher special allowance of Rs.350/- per month with effect from 3rd February, 1989 to Sudip Kr. Ghosh and with effect from 1st March, 1993 to Tapan Kr. Sarkar. 9. According to the petitioner such payment was made erroneously under bona fide mistake. The petitioner paid the higher special allowance of Rs.350/- per month with effect from 3rd February, 1989 to Sudip Kr. Ghosh and with effect from 1st March, 1993 to Tapan Kr. Sarkar. 9. According to the petitioner such payment was made erroneously under bona fide mistake. It appears that the petitioners stopped payment of higher special allowance to the concerned workmen with effect from 1st July, 1997 and called upon them to refund the higher special allowance paid to them. 10. The respondent Union raised a dispute with regard to the aforesaid action of the respondents which was eventually referred to the Respondent Central Government Industrial Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the respondent Tribunal, for adjudication. The respondent Union as also the petitioner filed their respective written statements before the respondent Tribunal. 11. The petitioner contended that in terms of the industry-wise bipartite settlement dated 8th September, 1983 ALPM machines stand on a different footing and are relatable to the following functions :- a) Current accounts including overdraft accounts; b) Savings Bank account; c) Other deposit accounts; d) General Ledger accounts; e) Cash credit and loan accounts; f) Salary and pay and allowances. 12. The petitioner contended that in the written statement tiled before the respondent Tribunal, the petitioner asserted that neither Sudip Kr. Ghosh nor Tapan Kr. Sarkar were designated as Telex-cum-Personal Computer Operators/ALPM Operators. There was no vacancy in the post of PC Operator/ALPM Operator in the International Branch of the petitioner. 13. There was, according to the petitioner, no post of Personal Computer Operator. Telex Operators used Personal Computers only for sending telex messages. 14. The service conditions of the clerical and subordinate other staff in the banking industry are governed by the Shastri Award as modified from time to time. The general rules governing payment of special allowance are enumerated in Chapter 5 of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19th October, 1966. 15. While the quantum of special allowance has been enhanced by subsequent Bipartite Settlements, the general rule governing payment of special allowance remain unaltered, according to the petitioners. 16. The general rules governing payment of special allowance are enumerated in Chapter 5 of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19th October, 1966. 15. While the quantum of special allowance has been enhanced by subsequent Bipartite Settlements, the general rule governing payment of special allowance remain unaltered, according to the petitioners. 16. The relevant rules being Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.11 of the First Bipartite Settlement are set out below for convenience:- "5.8 A workman will be entitled to special allowance if he is required to perform duty/duties and/or undertake the responsibilities listed against the category irrespective of his designation/nomenclature or any general authority vested in him." "5.11 Wherever a bank requires a workman to work in a post carrying special allowance it will normally be done by an order in writing. 17. Relying on the aforesaid paragraphs, it is contended that a workman can only be entitled to higher allowance if that workman is assigned the higher special allowance carrying duty by an order in writing. It is contended that the workmen concerned were only directed to do the duties of telex operators. 18. Clause 16 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29th March, 1987 between 57 Banks and the All India Bank Employees Association and the National Confederation of Bank Employees provided for special allowance at the rate of Rs.350/- per month for operation of ALPMs/AEAMs. It is contended that there is no provision for payment of special allowance at the rate of Rs.350/- per month for operation of PC telex machines. 19. By an award dated 25th June, 1998 which is impugned in the instant writ application, the respondent Tribunal held that the workmen concerned were entitled to the higher special allowance of Rs.350/- per month. 20. The operative portion of the said impugned award is extracted herein-below for convenience:- "In view of what goes above, I am to hold that the management of Allahabad Bank was not justified in discontinuing the payment of special allowance of Rs.350/- per month for Telex-cum-P.C. Operator to the concerned workmen. The management is accordingly directed to resume payment of such special allowance to these workmen with immediate effect and to pay the balance of the said amount after deducting the amount already paid to them from the date of discontinuance thereof. This is my award." 21. The management is accordingly directed to resume payment of such special allowance to these workmen with immediate effect and to pay the balance of the said amount after deducting the amount already paid to them from the date of discontinuance thereof. This is my award." 21. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned award is perverse, the same being in contravention of the Bipartite Settlements. According to the petitioner, the conclusion arrived at by the respondent Tribunal is inconsistent with its own findings as recorded in the impugned award. 22. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also attacked the correctness of the findings of the respondent Tribunal with regard to the similarities between the ALPM and the Personal Telex Computer Machines operated by the concerned workmen. 23. It was further submitted that the impugned award, although innocuous, has the effect of unsettling industry-wise settlement binding on the award staff members of the banking industry all over India by creating a new class of PC Telex Operators. The impugned award if allowed to remain would result in ramifications, which would negate the very spirit of the Bipartite Settlement. If the award is sustained, irretrievable injustice would be done not only to the petitioner but to the banking industry all over India since the impugned award would be cited as a precedent for similar claims all over India. 24. It is finally submitted that the finding of the respondent Tribunal that Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had been violated was also perverse. This, according to the petitioner, was a case where a higher special allowance paid under bona fide mistake had been discontinued and as such there could be no question of alteration of service conditions. 25. Mr. Dey appearing on behalf of the respondent Union submitted that it is a well settled proposition of law that no award should be interfered with by the High Court in writ proceedings unless the said award is perverse. The award in the instant case is not perverse. 26. Mr. Dey submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner on consideration of all aspects started paying special allowance to the concerned workmen. While considering the payment of special allowance, the nature of the work performed by the concerned workmen at the material time had duly been taken into consideration. 27. 26. Mr. Dey submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner on consideration of all aspects started paying special allowance to the concerned workmen. While considering the payment of special allowance, the nature of the work performed by the concerned workmen at the material time had duly been taken into consideration. 27. Reference has been made to a letter dated 2nd April, 1993 of the Chief Manager of the International Branch being Annexure P-I to the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by the respondent Union, which would show that the said Chief Manager while recommending higher allowance specified the type of jobs the concerned workmen rendered. 28. Reliance has also been placed on a letter dated 16th April, 1993 of the Personnel Manager of the Eastern Zonal Office of the petitioner recommending higher allowance to the concerned workmen. 29. The aforesaid two letters, according to the Counsel, clearly establishes that payment of special allowance of Rs.350/- to the concerned workmen had not been made inadvertently or by mistake but made consciously taking into account relevant facts and circumstances. 30. Mr. Dey further submitted that an ALPM is nothing but a computer in a different name. Relying on Clause 5.8 of the First Bipartite Settlement pertaining to the General Rules for special allowance, Mr. Dey submitted that a workman would be entitled to special allowance if he was required to perform duties or undertake responsibilities which carried special allowance, irrespective of his designation, nomenclature or any general authority vested in him. The learned Tribunal, according to Mr. Dey rightly directed resumption of special allowance. 31. The impugned award is a long and reasoned one. The respondent Tribunal after considering all the materials-on-record as also the relevant provisions of the Bipartite award has arrived at the finding that the concerned workmen were entitled to the Special Allowance of Rs.350/- per month. 32. The factual findings of the respondent Tribunal with regard to the nature of the duties performed by the concerned workmen are not open to interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the factual findings with regard to the nature and properties of ALPMs and Personal Telex Computer Machines are also not liable to be interfered with. 33. The respondent Tribunal has arrived at its findings with regard to the nature of the duties of the concerned workmen upon consideration of the materials-on-record. Similarly, the factual findings with regard to the nature and properties of ALPMs and Personal Telex Computer Machines are also not liable to be interfered with. 33. The respondent Tribunal has arrived at its findings with regard to the nature of the duties of the concerned workmen upon consideration of the materials-on-record. The findings of the respondent Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse. 34. It is the petitioner's own case that the general rules for payment of Special Allowances as contained in Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.11 of the First Bipartite Settlement are applicable. As per the provision of Paragraph 5.8 entitlement to Special Allowances is relatable to the nature of the duties and not the nomenclature of the post. The requirement for orders in writing as provided for in Paragraph 5.11 of the First Bipartite Settlement is evidently not mandatory, the word 'normally' having been used. The contention of the petitioner that the impugned award is contrary to the Bipartite Settlement cannot, therefore, be upheld. 35. As rightly submitted by Mr. Dey the letters disclosed in the Affidavit-in-Opposition show that the nature of the duties performed by the concerned workmen had been taken into account before Special Allowance was granted to them. The contention of the petitioner, that payment had been made erroneously and/or under bona fide mistake cannot be accepted. In any event, it is difficult to comprehend how a mistake could have continued for years notwithstanding Annual Audit. At least in the case of one of the workmen the allowance of Rs.350/- had admittedly been paid for over 4 years. 36. The scope of interference with an award in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. This Court does not sit in appeal over an award made by an industrial Tribunal. Factual findings arrived at by a Tribunal upon consideration of evidence are not usually interfered with. An award cannot also be interfered with only because this Court on considering of facts or on consideration the relevant contractual or legal provisions takes a different view from that taken by the Tribunal. 37. Stoppage of payment of an allowance sanctioned inadvertently through bona fide mistake may not attract Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the instant case, this Court has not been able to accept the contention of the petitioner of Special Allowance having been allowed by mistake. 37. Stoppage of payment of an allowance sanctioned inadvertently through bona fide mistake may not attract Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the instant case, this Court has not been able to accept the contention of the petitioner of Special Allowance having been allowed by mistake. The withdrawal of an allowance amounts to alteration of condition of service and attracts Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 38. The finding of the respondent Tribunal of contravention of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot, therefore, be assailed. The mere fact that an award might be cited as precedent is no ground for interference with an award. There is no scope for interference with the impugned award in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ application is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs.