Judgment :- Petitioner-management, seeks to quash Ext.P6 award in O.P. 10678/87 ordering reinstatement of respondent workman, while the workman challenges the same award, denying back wages on reinstatement, in O.P.860/88. 2. The workman a Junior Clerk in a bank was placed under suspension on a charge of falsification of accounts. Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued to him. His explanation Ext.P2 was considered and on the basis of Ext.P3 report he was dismissed from service. Upon that, an industrial dispute was raised and eventually Ext.P6 award (O.P. 10678/87) was made. The management would submit that there was no justification in ordering reinstatement, though without back wages, after finding'grave charges'. The workman on the contrary, would urge that when reinstatement was ordered, back wages too, should have been ordered. 3. It is noticed in paragraph 5 of the award, that the workman did not challenge the enquiry or the findings on fact, and consideration was limited to the question of punishment. In paragraph 9 of the award the labour court found that the workman was guilty of "grave misconduct". The Labour Court noticed the acts of misconduct, which include disobedience of lawful directions of the Secretary, repetition of similar acts even after warnings and punishments; and making several interpolation in books of accounts, - the charge in the instant case. Despite these, the Labour Court said: "In these circumstances, punishment by way of dismissal cannot be said to be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Equity demands interference in the matter of punishment". The Labour Court seems to think that dispensation of leniency unrelated to facts, is a virtue in itself. May be, it is not pleasant for any authority to impose punishments. But, when a situation requires imposition of punishment in the interests of efficiency and discipline, the plain requirement of the situation, cannot be glossed over by professions of equity and compassion. No one can miss the Constitutional perceptions to which the State is beholden, namely to secure just and humane conditions of work, and creation of congenial working atmosphere (Articles 43 & 43A). At once, the industry and all its components must strive towards excellence, so that the country rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement (Article 51.A. (j)). Excellence is not achieved, except with a deep sense of commitment to work, and discipline. Diluting discipline, and condoning indiscipline would only destroy motivation. At once, the industry and all its components must strive towards excellence, so that the country rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement (Article 51.A. (j)). Excellence is not achieved, except with a deep sense of commitment to work, and discipline. Diluting discipline, and condoning indiscipline would only destroy motivation. Loyalty to work, and discipline are not alien to industrial jurisprudence. Misguided sympathy is no more than a maudlin sentiment. The workman held an office of trust. The manner of his functioning was bound to have an impact on the efficiency and reputation of the financial institution that employed him. Beyond dispute, he had tampered with the accounts. To say that the punishment was not commensurate with the gravity of the offence, either meaning that the offence was not grave, or meaning that the punishment was harsh, prima facie, does not appear to be correct. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steels Ltd. v. A.K. Roy (AIR 1970 S.C.140T) and Workmen v. Bharat Frits Werner (P) Ltd. & Another (1990 (3) SCC 565) illumine this area. Even where charges are not established, reinstatement is not the invariable rule. Relief must be moulded on diverse considerations. Loss of confidence and nature of post held must be borne in mind in deciding whether reinstatement or compensation should be ordered. That is the rule, when disciplinary action itself is unsustainable. A broader approach is not justified when the findings of misconduct stand. 4. The Labour Court misdirected itself in law. However, I do not express a final opinion on the question of punishment to be imposed, for, this is in the province of the Labour Court. The Labour Court will take back the matter on file and consider the question of punishment with reference to the facts of the case, the nature of relationship between employer & employee, the question of confidence, nature of duties of the post and other relevant facts, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of the principle indicated hereinbefore. Ext.P6 award is quashed to the limited extent it varied the punishment imposed by the management. Original Petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs.