Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. The 1st respondents herein was an employee of the petitioner - Co - operative Urban Bank. A charge sheet was issued to the 1st respondent raising six charges on 9-11-1984. They are: Temporary misappropriation of a sum of Rs.10,000/- for two days i.e., from 25-8-1984 to 27-8-1984, procuring of gold loans by forging the signature of his wife; negligence and dereliction of duty; failure to the obtain the signature of the Branch Manager in the cash book; and keeping temporary voucher to divert bank's money. Insubordination and rude behavior were also alleged. After due enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that the charge Nos. 1, 2 and 5 i.e., temporary misappropriation, procuring of gold loans by forging the signature of his wife and keeping temporary voucher were found established. Charge No.3 i.e. , negligence and derelicton was found proved in part. He was exonerated of other charges. Accepting the report, the petitioner passed orders dismissing the 1st respondent from the service of the Bank. 2. When the matter reached the Labour Court, Kollam in I.D. No. 71 of 1988, the Labour Court passed a preliminary order on 15-2-1996 finding that the findings entered by the Enquiry Committee were proper and correct. The matter was posted for further hearing with regard to the propriety of punishment. Ultimately, Ext. P1 award was passed by the Labour Court setting aside the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary committee and ordering reinstatement with 50% backwages "so as to enable him to reform himself and to prove to be a loyal and disciplined employee of the management bank". 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the relevant case law and submitted that in a case of misappropriation, the deliquent does not deserve any mercy. It was further pointed out that as far as the banking institutions are concerned, the position is still worse and that to sustain the faith of the customers and to ensure that public money is not wasted, it is essential that intrgrity of the workmen have to be ensured and that the persons, who do not have absolute honesty and intergrity, have no right to continue in bank's service. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that misappropriation established here, if at all correct, is only a technical misappropriation of a temporary nature and that the 1st respondent was actually trying to help one of his colleagues when he was in absolute need. It was also pointed out that in any case the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary committee was totally disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the Labour was fully justified in interfering with the punishment and directing reinstatement. 5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there was no loss caused to the Bank in consequence of the alleged delinquency on the part of the 1st respondents. It is true that there was a deficit of Rs.10,000/- in the bank's account when the bank opened for functioning on 27-8-1984 vis-a-vis the cash balance left on 25-8-1984. When a customer approached with a cheque of Rs.10,000/- for encahment that morning, the money for paying him had to be found by withdrawal from a current account of the bank in the Indian Overeas Bank, Nettayam Branch resulting in considerable delay. Thus there was inconvenience and embarrassment caused to the customer. At the same time, it seen observed by the Labour Court that the petitioner had an unblemished record of past service. The disciplinary action started in the year 1984 and the 1st respondents has been under suspension all along. Therefore, he has been getting only a sum of Rs. 1,376.89 per mensem pursuant to an interim order of this Court. The 1st respondent has suffered loss of salary for several years coupled with mental agony, financial stress, want of peace of mind, estrangement in family life etc, as noted by the Labour Court. The Court has further found that these hardships themselves amount to punishment for the act of misconduct done by the 1st respondent. It was taking into account all these aspects that the Labour Court was inclined to take a lenient view and to direct reinstatement of the 1st respondent in sevice with 50% backwages. 6. I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitoner that the Labour Court, having found that the findings of the disciplinary authority were justified and that the petitioner deserves punishment, went wrong in directing payment of wages at 50% even after directing reinstatement. 6. I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitoner that the Labour Court, having found that the findings of the disciplinary authority were justified and that the petitioner deserves punishment, went wrong in directing payment of wages at 50% even after directing reinstatement. During hearing a decision of three Judges rendered by the Apex Court in Assistant General Manager, SBI. V. Thomas Jose ((2000)10 SCC 280) was brought to my notice. That was case where the disciplinary action was against the 1st respondent therein who was an employee of the State Bank of India. When officiating as Cash Officer in a branch of the Bank, he withdrew Rs. 3, 000/- from the savingsBank Account of a third party by forging the signature of the account - holder concerned on a withdrawal form and thereafter appropriated the amount for his won personal use. The fraud was detected by the external auditors of the bank. The 1st respondent admitted that he had withdrawn Rs.3,000/- and ultimately the 1st respondent was dismissed from the bank's service. The Industrial Tribunal, before whom the matter reached, found that the misonduct was proved and the punishment of dismissal was, however, too harsh. It therefore ordered reinstatement of the employee; but without backwages. 7. While deciding the propriety of the said action, the Apex Court took note of the earlier decision in Scooter India Ltd., V. Labour court. Lucknow (AIR 1989 SC 149) wherein the Apex Court had declined to interfere with the view of the Labour Court that an errant workman should be given an opportunity to reform himself and prove to be loyal and disciplined. It held that there is some difference between the facts of that case and the case of the bank in so far as a bank deals with public money, and misappropropriaton by an employee of a bank is misappropriation of public money and must be treated very differently. It was taking into account the said aspects also that the court held that misconduct by bank employee cannot be treated lightly and that there should at least have been reisnstatement without backwages plus a direction that the delinquent Bank Official would not be entitled to any increments for a substantial period which the court fixed as for 10 years. 8. 8. I am of the view that the position in the instant cast is more or less similar and that the said benefit can be exteneded to the 1st respondent herein also. Ext.P1 award, in so far as it directs punishment, is hence set aside and it is directed that while reinstatement ordered by its would be allowed to stand, there will not be any direction to pay backwages for the period till reinstatement and also that the 1st respondent would not be eligible for increments for a period of 10 years from the date of reinstatement. His pay would be fixed in the present scale applicable to his post as on the date of reinstatement suitably. Subsistence allowance or intereim payment received by the employee shall not, however, be repayable. The original Petition is disposed of as above.