SHIV NARAYAN DHLNGRA, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of Labour Court under section 33-C (2) dated March 9, 1988 whereby the Labour Court has held that the employee was entitled for payment of Rs. 164/- per month in addition to his salary because the bank had given him responsibility of running a cash department. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts relevant for disposing this petition are that the respondent Ghan shyam Madhukar was working with the petitioner bank as a clerk. He was posted at central Accounts Office, New Delhi and he was ordered by the management to maintain petty cash of Rs. 500/- to meet the expenses towards postal stamps and reimbursement of scooter fare etc. with effect from February 6, 1983. He claimed that he was performing all the jobs as expected from a cashier and, therefore, he was entitled for special allowance of Rs. 164/- per month in terms of Bipartite agreement with the Bank. ( 3 ) THE management had taken the stand that no public dealings or cash transactions relating to banking used to be carried out in central Accounts Office. The main function of this unit was handling of clearance operation. The provision of special allowance in Bipartite agreement for handling cash was made for compensating the employees discharging additional duty that of cashier-clerk in-charge of cash at cash counter handling huge amount of cash and holding cash and valuable in joint custody. The clerk who was not doing all these duties and was merely asked to handle Rs. 500/- as petty cash amount, was not entitled for such allowance. ( 4 ) THE Labour Court held that in view of the paragraph 5. 7 of Bipartite Settlement providing for payment of special allowance, the claimant was entitled to claim special allowance since this allowance was payable for all or anyone of all the duties mentioned in the bipartite Agreement. After recording evidence, Labour Court came to conclusion that the plea of the management that the respondent was handling only an amount of Rs. 500/- as petty cash, was falsified from the record and record showed that the workman had handled at least 32 transactions involving more than Rs. 500/-, out of them in 8 transactions an amount of Rs. After recording evidence, Labour Court came to conclusion that the plea of the management that the respondent was handling only an amount of Rs. 500/- as petty cash, was falsified from the record and record showed that the workman had handled at least 32 transactions involving more than Rs. 500/-, out of them in 8 transactions an amount of Rs. 1,000/- was involved and the maximum cash handled by the petitioner on one day was Rs. 4,838. 05. It is stated that payments in cash and holding of cash in joint custody is not included in the routine clerical duties and, therefore, respondent was entitled for special allowance. ( 5 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has repeated the contentions raised that the Labour court had passed order contrary to the Bipartite agreement and has equated a cashier to a person holding imprest amount. ( 6 ) I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the record. Rule 5. 7 of the Bipartite Agreement reads as under: "the additional duties and functions involving greater skill or responsibility, which would entitle a workman to a special allowance, are more particularly enumerated, for each category of workmen, in Appendix B' hereto. Special allowances will be payable for all or any of the duties listed in Appendix 'b' except where it is specifically provided therein that for a particular category the additional duties entitling him to a special allowance, include or involve all the duties listed under that category. " Appendix 'b' part I-For Non-subordinate State (xiii) Cashier-Incharge of Cash in Pay: offices or Branches. "single Cashier in pay offices or branches holding cash and valuables in joint custody with an officer, accountable for them and. responsible for the running of the Cash department. " ( 7 ) A perusal of the above agreement would show that the special allowance was payable to the employees who were involved in : additional duty involving greater skills or responsibility. The category enumerated was of single cashier in pay office or branch office holding cash and valuables in joint custody with an officer, accountable for that responsibility'. in running the cash department. The category enumerated was of single cashier in pay office or branch office holding cash and valuables in joint custody with an officer, accountable for that responsibility'. in running the cash department. It is clear that for entitlement to special allowance, someone has to be cashier in pay office and supposed to have cash and valuables in joint custody with an officer and he was accountable for them and was responsible for running the cash department, it can be imagined that a person who has been asked to hold an imprest amount of Rs. 500/- to meet petty expenses, can be considered as cashier or a person running a cash department. I consider that the learned presiding Officer fell in error in holding that person who handles impress amount, is entitled for special allowance. Even if the total payment or transaction had been of around Rs. 1,000/ -for any one day, that does not show that he was normally performing functions of a cashier. It is argued by counsel for the respondent that respondent was making payments for postal stamps, for scooter fare expenses etc. and was maintaining accounts for all that. As a clerk, the respondent was supposed to do all the duties assigned to him. The special allowance was payable only if the respondent fell in the category of Bipartite Agreement. I am of the opinion that the respondent did not fall in the category of non-subordinate staff being incharge of handling cash in the payment office. I, therefore, find that the Labour Court had wrongly interpreted the provisions of bipartite Agreement and committed an error manifest on record. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No order as to costs.