IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 WA.No. 1277 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.14328/2000 Dated 24/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,(P&HRD) BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM,691 001. 2. JAMES C.MATHEW, NISHA BHAVAN, SFS SEEMINARI ROAD, ETTUMANOOR-686 631. 3. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI-110 001. ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA FOR R2 SMT.MANJULA NAIR FOR R2 SMT.R.B.SIMI FOR R2 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1277 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant-Bank and counsel appearing for the second respondent. The second respondent was involved in misappropriation of Rs.14,000/- on one occasion and Rs.2,777/- on another occasion. In enquiry he was found guilty and the Bank dismissed him from service. However, the Industrial Tribunal on a reference, reduced the punishment from dismissal to discharge. When Bank challenged the reduction in punishment, the learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the Bank and upheld the award, against which Writ Appeal is filed. 2. Before us, counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the conduct of the second respondent amounts to a major act of indiscipline and, therefore, nothing short of dismissal serves as a punishment. Even though we agree with the contention of the counsel for the appellant that a Bank cannot tolerate misappropriation of public W.A. 1277/2010 2 funds handled by the Bank by any employee, we notice that the Industrial Tribunal found that the second respondent had 25 years of blemishless service prior to his involvement in the irregularities and that he is left with wife and three children, all the children are undergoing education. Therefore, reduction in punishment is granted more on grounds of human consideration and not by treating the irregularity committed by the second respondent as a minor offence or an act which deserves lesser punishment. The consequence of conversion of the punishment from dismissal to discharge only entitles the second respondent to get terminal benefits like gratuity. Nobody can dispute that these benefits are available to an employee for the services rendered in the past. Admittedly second respondent was not involved in any irregularity or act of indiscipline during his 24 years of career prior to the two incidents. Further, the irregularity involved is also in small amounts. We are also of the view that the consideration namely, dependency of the family on the delinquent employee, which weighed with the Labour Court and that found acceptance with the learned Single Judge, is relevant while considering punishment. We, W.A. 1277/2010 3 therefore, do not think we should interfere with the discretion exercised by the Industrial Tribunal, which was accepted by the learned Single Judge and which we consider to be quite reasonable. Consequently we dismiss the Writ Appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms