IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21890 of 2005(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BOARD, MUNDAKAPPADAM MANDIRAM HOSPITAL, MANGANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.RONY J.PALLATH SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI. 2. SRI.BENNY JOHN, PUTHIYAPARAMBIL VEEDU, MANGANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY FOR R2 SRI.ABU MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.ANIL KURIAN THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL FOR R2 R3 BY G.P. SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DT.7.4.2005 IN I.D. NO.68/2002 PASSED BY R1. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.21890 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 award in which the Tribunal ordered reinstatement of the dismissed employee, but without backwages. It is seen that the Industrial Tribunal accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer that respondent was guilty of misappropriation. However, in it's discretion, the Industrial Tribunal reduced the punishment from dismissal to reinstatement without back wages. Senior counsel appearing for the management rightly pointed out that misconduct is nothing but misappropriation and the offence being so serious in nature, the employee cannot be allowed to rejoin duty. I am of the view that the respondent does not deserve sympathetic consideration shown by the Industrial Tribunal because employees' loyalty and integrity are the essence of success in any organisation. Therefore, an employee found to be involved in misappropriation cannot be ordered to be reinstated under any circumstance. However, having regard to the fact that the misappropriation noticed is only one instance and that too an attempt, and since respondent has served 24 years prior to the same, I dispose of the W.P. by reversing the award of the 2 Industrial Tribunal, but by converting the punishment from dismissal to discharge. Consequently gratuity and other benefits should be given to the respondent without any delay. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms