Judgment :- S.U. Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against award dated July 31, 1989 given by Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No. 277/1985. The following matter was referred to the Tribunal: "Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in stopping two annual increments of Sri S.N. Tripathi, Head Cashier, Union Bank of India, Koelsa Branch, permanent (sic.) having effect of postponing of future increments for two years is fair, just and legal, if not, to what relief workman concerned is entitled? 3. Charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on February 18, 1981 containing the allegations that on April 18 and April 19, 1980 at about 10 a.m. he refused to accept the cash from Banks customers in spite of being advised by Branch Manager to accept the cash and further that on April 19, 1980, after refusing to accept the cash from the customers, he directed the customers to approach the Branch Manager for handing over the cash to him. After full-fledged enquiry by Enquiry Officer, aforesaid punishment was awarded to the petitioner. 4. The Industrial Tribunal has reproduced the portions of report of E.O. to the effect that during enquiry E.O. was intimidated and insulted. The Industrial Tribunal fully agreed with the said observations. 5. Before the Industrial Tribunal, it was argued on behalf of the workman-petitioner through Union that enquiry was not fair. The Industrial Tribunal found that the enquiry was fair. Full opportunity of hearing was given to the workman, who examined himself and two witnesses and he never complained before the E.O. in writing that proper opportunity was not being granted to him. The Industrial Tribunal also recorded the finding that defence representative threatened the E.O. It was further held that workman himself admitted before E.O. that he had received copies of documents with annexures. The Industrial Tribunal completely affirmed the action of the Management. 6. E.O. through report dated June 30, 1981 found the charges proved. Thereafter, notice was issued indicating therein the proposed punishment. Thereafter, punishment order was passed on July 17, 1981, against which appeal was filed, which was dismissed on January 7, 1982. Both these orders were subject-matter of reference. 7. TheIndustrial Tribunal also held that punishment awarded was quite proportionate. 6. E.O. through report dated June 30, 1981 found the charges proved. Thereafter, notice was issued indicating therein the proposed punishment. Thereafter, punishment order was passed on July 17, 1981, against which appeal was filed, which was dismissed on January 7, 1982. Both these orders were subject-matter of reference. 7. TheIndustrial Tribunal also held that punishment awarded was quite proportionate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Paragraphs 19.5, 19.6, 19.7 and 19.8 of Bipartite Settlement, through which services of Bank Employees are governed. In my opinion, the action of the workman amounted to gross misconduct in accordance with the aforesaid paragraphs. I do not find any fault in the impugned award. It was rightly held that full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, charges were proved and findings of E.O. were based on admissible evidence. Absolutely, no ground for reducing the punishment was also made out. The Supreme Court in L and D. Kamatsu Ltd. v. N. Udaya Kumar 2008 (116) FLR 1139 (SC) has held that in the quantum of punishment, interference cannot lightly be made by the Labour Court or High Court. 8. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.