JUDGMENT A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard counsel for the appellant. Appellant is the wife of the deceased petitioner in the original petition who is impleaded as the legal representative of the petitioner in the Original Petition. The Original Petition was filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P6 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam by which the deceased employee who was found guilty and was dismissed from service of the Indian Overseas Bank and for other reliefs. 2. The deceased employee was given a charge sheet on 16-12-1983 for misconduct conducted by him. A domestic enquiry, was ordered into.the charges. The enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority. The management examined the witnesses and produced documents to prove the allegations against the appellant's husband. The deceased employee have neither examined any witness or produced any documents to substantiate his defence even though opportunity was given to him. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the evidence, found the appellant's husband guilty of the misconduct which are 'major misconducts' in terms of Para.17.5(J) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 14-12-1966 between the bank and its workmen as amended upto date. Thereafter petitioner in the Original Petition was given show cause notice by the disciplinary authority and he was also given an opportunity of being heard. The disciplinary authority, after considering the entire matter passed an order of dismissal of the appellant's husband from the services of the bank. The appeal filed by the deceased employee before the appellate authority was also dismissed and the order of the disciplinary authority was confirmed. Thereupon the appellant's husband raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam and before the Tribunal, the employee challenged the validity of the enquiry. By a preliminary order the Industrial Tribunal held that the enquiry was proper and valid and further found on the question of punishment that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the employee is not excessive or unjustifiable by award dated 6-7-1990. Challenging the said award passed by the Industrial Tribunal the employee filed the original petition to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal. According to the employee he was not guilty of any lapses and there was no basis for the allegations and the enquiry had been held by the Enquiry Officer in violation of the principles of natural justice. Challenging the said award passed by the Industrial Tribunal the employee filed the original petition to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal. According to the employee he was not guilty of any lapses and there was no basis for the allegations and the enquiry had been held by the Enquiry Officer in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the Tribunal, considering the past service records of the employee ought to have imposed a lesser punishment for it had come in evidence in respect of the transaction that the bank had sustained any loss. The original petition was resisted by the bank. According to the bank the enquiry was conducted in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the employee was given proper opportunity of being heard. During the pendency of the writ petition the employee-petitioner in the O.P. died and his wife, the present appellant was impleaded vide order in C.M.P.23545/97 dated 20-8-1997. The learned Judge after considering the materials placed before him held that the order of the Industrial Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with and that even though the punishment of dismissal was made for serious misconduct, the employee was given full gratuity and therefore there is no jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record in the award of the Industrial Tribunal. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned single Judge, the wife of the deceased employee filed the above appeal and has reiterated the contentions raised in the Original Petition. We have heard counsel appearing on either side and gone through the entire pleadings and also the enquiry reports and of the judgment impugned in this writ appeal. 4. The enquiry records reveal that the enquiry was conducted in compliance with the principles of natural justice and that the enquiry officer on a proper appreciation of the evidence passed an order which was appealed against. The misconduct proved against the appellant is very grave and serious. The allegation proved against him is that he has forged the signature of an account holder of the bank in a withdrawal slip and persuaded the officer in charge to pass it for payment by intimating the officer that he know the account holder and that he is at the counter awaiting payment and thus got the withdrawal slip encashed from the bank. Subsequent conduct of the petitioner also has strengthened the case viz., the next day when the account holder came to the counter and disputed the payment made on the previous day, the employee made good the amount later. The employee's letter dated 15-7-1983 and 4-8-1983 are also clear admissions of his misconduct. In the instant case the employee was employed in a nationalised bank. In the case of an employee in a bank the action of the employee is nothing but a grave misconduct. The punishment imposed on the employee, in our opinion, is just and proper and therefore the same was upheld by Tribunal an accepted by the learned single Judge. Consideration of past records in matters like this have no relevance while imposing punishment for such a grave and serious misconducts. Likewise the question whether the bank sustained loss is also not a relevant aspect to be considered. The belief of account holders on the bank is the most important matter. The act of the employee is such that it can tarnish the image of the bank in the eyes of the public. We are therefore of the opinion that the award of the Tribunal is just and proper and the judgment of the learned single Judge confirming the said award is perfectly in order. There is absolutely no scope for interference in the order of the Tribunal as confirmed by the learned single Judge. 5. During the pendency of the Original Petition the employee of the bank died and his wife was brought on record. The Supreme Court in Rameshwar Manjhi v. Sangramgar Colliery ( 1994 (1) KLT 1 ) held that on the death of the workman, even when the reference is of an individual dispute under S.2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal does not become functus officio or the reference does not abate merely because, pending adjudication, the workman concerned dies and it is open to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased workman to have the matter agitated and decided. In the instant case the relief asked for by the deceased employee is to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal confirming the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. Since it is personal in nature, the said relief, even if the writ petition is allowed cannot at all be granted to the legal representatives. In the instant case the relief asked for by the deceased employee is to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal confirming the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. Since it is personal in nature, the said relief, even if the writ petition is allowed cannot at all be granted to the legal representatives. The legal representatives if at all will be entitled to the monetary benefits if any due to the deceased employee. It is stated by counsel for the appellant that the Bank has not paid the entire gratuity as claimed by them before the learned single Judge. Since there is dispute with regard to the payment of gratuity, the appellant is at liberty to move before the Bank for redressal and it is for the bank to consider and pay the balance if any to the appellant viz., wife of the deceased. On a consideration of all the circumstances it cannot be said that the order of dismissal is excessive or unjustifiable and the punishment imposed by the management is only proper and this court sitting in appeal will not be justified in interfering with the order of the Tribunal and as confirmed by the learned single Judge. Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.