Judgment : S. Siri Jagan, J. In these two writ petitions, a Co-operative Bank is the petitioner. They are challenging the awards of the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, in these writ petitions. In W.P. (C) No. 20922/ 2003, they are challenging Exhibit P-3 award in I.D. No. 18/2001, whereby, after finding the workman guilty of the misconducts charged against her, the workman was directed to be reinstated without any other benefits by interfering with the punishment of dismissal imposed by the management invoking powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and substituting the same with the punishment of barring of four increments. In O.P. No. 29953/2001, they are challenging the direction issued by the Tribunal in I.D. No. 38/1998 to pay to the workman concerned monetary benefits during the period when a, moratorium was in force in the Society regarding service benefits to its employees. The learned counsel for the bank submits that since the period of moratorium is over, practically nothing survives in O.P. No. 29953/2001. Accordingly that O.P. is closed. In I.D. No. 18/2001, the award which is challenged in W.P. (C) No. 20922/2003, the issue referred for adjudication was: "Whether the dismissal of Smt. 'Soubhaghiavathy, senior Clerk of Perur Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Perur by its management represented by its Secretary is justifiable, if not what relief she is entitled to." The workman was dismissed from service by the management, after having been found; guilty of misconducts in a domestic enquiry conducted for the purpose. Therefore the Tribunal considered the validity of the enquiry is a preliminary point. The Tribunal found that he enquiry was conducted validly and properly and that the findings entered by the enquiry officer were also supported by the evidence on record. Thereafter, after finding that the workman was guilty of the charges proved against her, the Tribunal directed the management to reinstate the workman in service without back wages for the period she was kept out of employment and awarded the punishment of barring of 4 increments instead. That part of the award is under challenge before me. 2. Therefore, the only question to be decided in this case is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in invoking powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, to interfere with the punishment of dismissal imposed by the management. That part of the award is under challenge before me. 2. Therefore, the only question to be decided in this case is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in invoking powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, to interfere with the punishment of dismissal imposed by the management. This would essentially depend upon the gravity of the misconduct proved against the workman. Therefore I shall first see the charges proved against the workman. The following charges were levelled against the workman; "(a) The worker who was a senior Clerk refused to discharge her duties and responsibilities in spite of repeated instructions given to her and she also refused to take over the charges of the Secretary on August 3, 1998. (b) The worker denied the fact of receipt of notice intimating her that the promotion benefits would be given to her only on submitting satisfactory explanation. (c) Making false allegation that the Secretary had forged the signature of the worker. (d) Making allegation that the former senior Clerk Sri. K. Damodharan put the signature of the worker and misleading the Board of directors and customers. (e) Submitting statements before the disciplinary committee contradictory to the contents of her letter dated September 5, 1998. (f) The worker had misbehaved towards the customers, other employees, Secretary, President and the members of Director Board. (g) Tampering the fixed deposit register by altering the figures Rs. 24,000/-to Rs. 20,000/- against fixed deposit loan No., 547/1998. (h) Writing unnecessary matters in day book and subsidiary cash book. (i) Making false allegation that receipt No. 4732 dated 29/08/1998 was rubbed with' paste, (j) Making false statement that one Sukumaran Master and Hajir Umma complained that all the items of gold ornaments pledged by them were not received back from the management-bank, (k) The worker refused to accept the memos served on her by the Secretary." The enquiry officer found that the workman was guilty of all the charges except charage "(e)." The Tribunal confirmed that finding. Therefore the question before me is whether the charges proved as above is serious enough to award the punishment of dismissal. 3. Therefore the question before me is whether the charges proved as above is serious enough to award the punishment of dismissal. 3. The learned counsel for the bank relies on several decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, in which it has been stated that in cases of proved misconduct involving misappropriation and similar misconducts, the Tribunal and the High Court shall not interfere with the punishment imposed by the management on misplaced sympathy and lenience. On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman would seriously dispute that these charges are that serious enough to warrant the punishment of dismissal. According to him, these are only misconduct warranting lesser punishment which only has been imposed by the Tribunal and therefore the award does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am of the opinion that these facts should be considered in the background that the management is a banking institution in the -:o-operative sector. The banking sector now-a-days is a very competitive field. Their survival would depend upon their efficiency and their capacity to attract more and more customers. A reading of the misconduct proved against the workman would make it abundantly clear that it includes even misbehaviour towards other employees and superior officers and members of the Director Board. She is even guilty of misconduct of tampering with the fixed deposit register by altering the figures Rs. 24,000/-to Rs. 20,000/-.I am of the opinion that in the nature of the business of the management, workman prone to such misconduct is a ability to the management and would certainly aversely affect the very performance of the management-bank. Such employees are likely drive away valuable customers. As is clear from O.P. No. 29953/2001, the bank at one time as in a very serious financial crisis, warranting even declaration of moratorium on payment of benefits to its employees. Such a bar would not be able to survive if they have to cope with such recalcitrant employees, while ring to survive in that very competitive field fact, the Tribunal also held in the award as follows: "There can be no doubt that the peculiar behaviour of the worker towards her colleagues and her unwarranted remarks to the customers would affect not only the discipline in the establishment but also the business interest of the management. Therefore, these allegations/charges would definitely amount to misconducts. 4. It appears that the worker was not conscious about the repercussion of her above improper behaviour, I am of the view that if she had been given appropriate punishment at appropriate time, she would not have repeated such misconducts. It is true that once she was meted out with the punishment of barring annual increment. The management was not in a position to sustain the said punishment when the matter was adjudicated by this Tribunal in I.D. No. 92/1994. In the circumstance, this Tribunal as per award dated January 3, 1997, set aside the said punishment. It appears that the said award had encouraged the worker to repeat the misconducts as she got an impression that she will get legal protection even if she commits serious misconducts. If the management had awarded proper punishments on previous occasions in compliance with the legal procedure, the worker would not have committed the present misconducts." As such, the Tribunal was also conscious about the serious effects of such misconduct on the well being of the bank and the necessity to impose deterrent punishment. In several cases relating to misconducts by employees of Banks the Supreme Court has held that there is a vital difference between other industries and a bank. A bank deals with public moneys and that financial irregularities by an. employee of a bank relates to public money and must be treated very differently. The Supreme Court has emphasized the necessity not to treat such misconducts lightly. After referring to several Supreme Court decisions, I myself, in the decision of Tata Tea Ltd. v. General Secretary and Another had noted that even verbal abuse of superiors has been considered by the Supreme Court as grave enough to warrant the punishment of dismissal. The Supreme Court had in several decisions cautioned the Tribunals and Labour Courts not to interfere with the punishment imposed by managements, without a specific finding to the effect that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the charge found proved, in exercise of powers under Section 11-A. The Division Bench decision of this Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. V. G. Krishnakumar, to which I was also a party, is reported as a short note in 2006-II-LLJ-661 (Ker) (Case No. 27). The short note reads thus at p. 668 of LLJ: "13. The short note reads thus at p. 668 of LLJ: "13. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act is not a jurisdiction of sympathy. Only if the Labour Court finds that the punishment imposed on the workman is disproportionate to the gravity of the 'misconduct committed by him, the Labour Court can interfere with the punishment under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act." 5. In this case the Tribunal had interfered with the punishment purely on misplaced sympathy as is clear from the award itself. On considering the misconducts proved against the workman, I am of the opinion that the workman deserves much more severe punishment than the one imposed by the Tribunal. The petitioner has been receiving wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act during the pendency of the original petition. Learned counsel for the workman submits that the workman is nearing the age of superannuation, which falls within an year or so. In the above circumstances, I feel that the punishment of discharge would satisfy the ends of justice. 6. Accordingly, I modify the relief portion of the award by converting the punishment given to the workman involved in the charge to one of discharge. The workman therefore would be entitled to terminal benefits only. W.P. (C) No. 20922/2003 is disposed of with the above modification of Exhibit P-3 award.