ORDER : M. Venugopal, J. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first Respondent in his file I.D. No. 159/97 and quash the order dated 27.10.2004. 2. The Petitioner's/Society's object is to extend the financial assistance to its members at their need. They also grant jewel loan by means of mortgage of the jewels. For the maintenance of stock and accountancy, a set of employees has been allotted with specific duties and responsibilities. The procedure for receipts and issues are backed by supporting vouchers, etc. 3. The case of the Petitioner/Society is that the second Respondent/employee has been serving as a clerk in the Petitioner/Society. He has been assigned with the pledged jewels on joint custody with the Secretary. As per the procedure, on receipt of the cash for redemption of jewels, the clerk has to make a note of the receipt in the jewel loan ledger with the help of the Secretary by using the other key after satisfying that the entries therein are tallying with each other. The second Respondent/employee as a custodian of the jewels has equal responsibility to look into the transactions carefully. It is impossible to do any mischief without the knowledge or connivance of the second Respondent/employee. The Special Officer of the Petitioner/Society on 27.12.1995, has verified the accounts and stocks of jewels and found that 33 items of jewels have not been in the stock. Whereas there is no entry in the respective books of accounts about the clearing of the loans. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner/Society that there is no possibility for the jewels to cross the door without the knowledge of the second Respondent/employee. However, he has not explained in detail as to the release of the jewels when accounts have not been closed. Thus, his connivance with the Secretary is a open secret parting with those jewels under pledge. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Society submits that Rs. 3,65,761.65 have been still outstanding and the Petitioner/Society has incurred a heavy loss. Also, it is found that Rs. 1,400/- on 10.08.1994 has not been brought to the account of the Society. 6. The second Respondent/employee has been suspended followed by a detail charge memo dated 21.03.1996 and he has been directed to submit his explanation within a week. 3,65,761.65 have been still outstanding and the Petitioner/Society has incurred a heavy loss. Also, it is found that Rs. 1,400/- on 10.08.1994 has not been brought to the account of the Society. 6. The second Respondent/employee has been suspended followed by a detail charge memo dated 21.03.1996 and he has been directed to submit his explanation within a week. He acknowledged the charge memo on 22.03.1996 and sent his explanation dated 10.04.1996 which has been found to be unsatisfactory and a domestic enquiry has been conducted against the second Respondent/employee and Thiru. C.G. Pethanaraj, Advocate, has been appointed as Enquiry Officer. The second Respondent/employee, on 27.07.1996 attended the enquiry and pleaded guilty unconditionally. However, to provide adequate opportunity to him to defend the charges, the Enquiry Officer decided to proceed with the enquiry on 24.09.1996. The second Respondent/employee again admitted the charges by his statement with supportive documents. When he has been given an opportunity to cross-examine the Management witness, K. Paramasivam, he reiterated once again that he admitted his guilt and need not cross-examine the witness. Therefore, the enquiry has been concluded. 7. The Enquiry Officer submitted his finding dated 07.12.1996 holding that all the charges levelled against the Petitioner mentioned in the charge memo have been proved beyond doubts and the charges levelled against the second Respondent/employee are as follows: (a) That he failed to make necessary entries in the records of the society for the receipt of Rs. 3,65,761.65/- towards redemption of jewel loans, released the pledged jewels from custody, thereby, he connived with the secretary in misappropriation of those amount; (b) That he, by suppressing the above misdeeds from the knowledge of the Special Officer, he derelict from his duties and responsibilities; (c) That he, failed to transact the receipt of Rs. 1,400/- on 10.08.1994, reduced the cash balance, thereby, helped the secretary to commit misappropriation of the said amount; (d) That he, by his willful acts and omissions undermined the morale and discipline of the society; (e) That, by his above commissions and omissions, the management lost confidence that reposed on him. 8. The Petitioner/Society decided to agree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and in view of the proved serious misconducts of the second Respondent/employee, the Petitioner/Society resolved to dismiss him. 8. The Petitioner/Society decided to agree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and in view of the proved serious misconducts of the second Respondent/employee, the Petitioner/Society resolved to dismiss him. A second show cause notice dated 10.12.1996 proposing the punishment of dismissal along with the copy of the Enquiry Officer's finding have been sent to the second Respondent/employee to offer his explanation. The second Respondent/employee by his reply dated 16.12.1996 admitted his guilt, but prayed for admonition. The Petitioner/Society has not been in a position to reconsider the proposed punishment in view of the seriousness of the proved misconduct and therefore, by means of an order dated 16.05.1997 dismissed the second Respondent from service taking effect from the date of suspension on 29.02.1996. 9. The second Respondent/employee filed I.D. No. 159 of 1997 raising a dispute as per Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the first Respondent/Labour Court, Madurai. After contest, the first Respondent/Labour Court, without considering or interfering with the quantum of punishment has incorrectly relied upon the order passed in the surcharge proceedings initiated against the second Respondent/employee and also improperly misconstrued the exoneration of his liability to exonerate himself from the charges held that no charge has been made out and passed an award of setting aside the dismissal order passed by the Petitioner/Society dated 16.05.1997 and further, directed to reinstate the second Respondent/employee and that too, with backwages. 10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Society contends that the first Respondent/Labour Court in paragraph 22 of the award in I.D. No. 159 of 1997 dated 27.10.2004, when admittedly the second Respondent/employee has conceded that the enquiry has been conducted properly and that the propriety of enquiry need not be gone into, has proceeded to find out that the charge of connivance of the second Respondent in misappropriation has been proved and thereby traversed beyond the pleadings, written arguments and without a issue being framed thereto when it is not at all the issue or pleading or a point in controversy and that the procedure adopted by the first Respondent is not in accordance with law. 11. 11. Advancing his arguments, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Society that the second Respondent/employee in his explanation to the charges-Ex.M.3, in his confession statement-Ex.M.9, during questioning in the domestic enquiry and in his deposition in the domestic enquiry -Ex.M.35, all along admitted his guilt and there is no need to go into the question that the charge of connivance has been proved or not. 12. Proceeding further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Society urges before this Court that the first Respondent/Labour Court has taken shelter on Ex.W.1, the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed in the surcharge proceedings initiated against the second Respondent along the co-accused which is not an admissible document as it is not related to the disciplinary action or relied upon during the domestic enquiry and thereby, relied on an extraneous material beyond the documents pertaining to disciplinary action/domestic enquiry to which he is not empowered. 13. Expatiating his submissions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Society submits that the first Respondent/Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the Arbitrator in his order in Ex.W.1, exonerated the second Respondent/employee from the liability of repayment of the loss on the ground that the co-delinquent conceded to remit the amount as he has been the beneficiary of misappropriation and his admission of guilt or the exoneration of the second Respondent/employee from the liability cannot absolve the second Respondent from the charge of connivance in the misappropriation. 14. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Society submits that it is admitted that without repayment of loan and without any entry in the loan ledger on the redemption of loan, the second Respondent/employee co-operated with the Secretary to get the release of the pledged jewels by using the key in his possession and thereby, with his knowledge, the jewel has crossed the locker illegally which amounts to clear connivance in the misdeeds and misuse of power and position, besides gross dereliction from his duties coupled with breach of trust. 15. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Society takes a plea that the first Respondent/Labour Court has failed to note that the second Respondent has been charged for connivance and not for misappropriation and when the charge of the connivance when proved amounts to the offence committed, the second Respondent/employee is to be awarded with punishment for misappropriation. 16. 15. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Society takes a plea that the first Respondent/Labour Court has failed to note that the second Respondent has been charged for connivance and not for misappropriation and when the charge of the connivance when proved amounts to the offence committed, the second Respondent/employee is to be awarded with punishment for misappropriation. 16. In short, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Society, is that the reasons assigned by the first Respondent/Labour Court to set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Petitioner/Society dated 16.05.1997 in its award in I.D. No. 159 of 1997, are against facts, biased and totally against the well settled principles of law and as such, the award is to be quashed by means of allowing this writ petition. 17. In response, the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/employee submits that the second Respondent/employee has been levelled with the allegations that he has connived with the Secretary of the Petitioner/Society in regard to the misappropriation of jewel loan amount and further that, he has misappropriated the receipt amount of Rs. 1,400/-, but the Secretary of the Petitioner/Society, K. Kottaimayan, has categorically admitted that he alone is liable for misappropriation and that he himself repaid the full amount and that the Enquiry Officer himself found that he has recorded the alleged receipt of Rs. 1,400/- in the rough cash book and thereby he has not committed any mistake. 18. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/employee that the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Uthamapalayam, has deleted the name of the second Respondent/employee from the surcharge proceedings as per Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and when the Petitioner/Society has dismissed the second Respondent/employee as per order dated 16.05.1997, the Petitioner filed I.D. No. 159 of 1997 in which the award has been passed by the first Respondent/Labour Court on 27.10.2004, wherein a direction has been issued to the Petitioner/Society to reinstate the second Respondent/employee with continuity of service and backwages. 19. 19. According to the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/employee, the Petitioner/Society has not reinstated the second Respondent/employee though various letters have been written by him and ultimately, the Petitioner/Society has filed the present writ petition, whereas in W.P.M.P.(MD) No. 10317 of 2005, this Court has directed the Petitioner/Society on 25.10.2005 to deposit the entire backwages within the period of three weeks, but the Petitioner/Society has not made any deposit. 20. The second Respondent/employee filed W.P.M.P.(MD) No. 11032 of 2005 as per Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and this Court on 01.02.2006, in W.P.M.P(MD) No. 11032 of 2005 has directed the Petitioner/Society to pay the monthly wages to the second Respondent/employee as per Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. When the Petitioner/Society has not complied with the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P(MD) No. 11032 of 2005 dated 01.02.2006, the second Respondent/employee sent a notice dated 20.06.2006 for the contempt committed by the Petitioner/Society, and only from the month of April 2006, the Petitioner/Society is paying the monthly wages and that too, not regularly. The categorical stand of the second Respondent/employee is that only for the record purpose, the Petitioner/Society has given fixed liability on the second Respondent/employee for jewel loan key. Practically, the Secretary, Kottaimayan, has been fully dealing with the jewel loan individually and this has been accepted by him at the enquiry held by the Petitioner/Society, but that document has been suppressed. 21. Further, the Secretary, Kottaimayan has admitted that he alone committed the misappropriation in jewel loan and the second Respondent/employee has no hand in it before the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Uthamapalayam and therefore, the second Respondent/employee has been exonerated from liability by the Deputy Registrar. Also, the fact that the Secretary, Kottaimayan, will get money and redeem the jewel, goes to show that the second Respondent/employee is no way practically concerned with it. 22. Inasmuch as the Secretary, Kottaimayan is fully responsible for the jewel loan and when he has paid the loss admitting his guilt, there is no connivance on the part of the second Respondent/employee. 22. Inasmuch as the Secretary, Kottaimayan is fully responsible for the jewel loan and when he has paid the loss admitting his guilt, there is no connivance on the part of the second Respondent/employee. Added further, the Enquiry Officer in his report has clearly stated that 'likewise, on different dates, when the jewel loan has been redeemed, the loan amount received by the Secretary has been misappropriated by him and that the jewel loan in-charge, Dinakaran (second Respondent/employee) has not informed the illegal/cheating acts to the higher officials.' 23. The learned Counsel for the second Respondent/employee submits that the second Respondent/employee is no way helped or connived with the Secretary Kottaimayan, to commit misconduct and there is no evidence also that the second Respondent/employee released any jewel and when the Secretary Kottaimayan has admitted his guilt and also repaid the amount, there is no loss to the Petitioner/Society. In regard to the receipt of Rs. 1,400/- on 10.08.1994, the second Respondent/employee has recorded the receipt in the rough cash book and in the domestic enquiry, it is observed that 'in the Day Book Register, Ex.P.6, on 10.08.1995, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 400/- totally a sum of Rs. 1,400/- has not been credited into the account. However, in the Subsidiary Day Book Register, the same has been credited and that the Subsidiary Day Book Register, Ex.P.7, has been maintained by the delinquent and that after receiving the cash amount, the same has not been credited into the savings account and the Secretary has misappropriated.' 24. Relying on the aforesaid observation in the enquiry report, the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/employee vehemently contends that the misappropriation has been committed only by the Secretary, Kottaimayan. That apart, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/employee that even in the explanation dated 21.12.1996, furnished by the second Respondent/employee to the second show cause notice, it has been clearly mentioned that the Secretary has committed all the misconducts and he has accepted the same and paid back the loss amount and therefore, the second Respondent/employee is innocent. Furthermore, the second Respondent/employee in not objecting to the conduct of enquiry will not amount to admission of the guilt by him. Furthermore, the second Respondent/employee in not objecting to the conduct of enquiry will not amount to admission of the guilt by him. The purported confession of the second Respondent/employee obtained through coercion, ought not to be given importance and that too, when in the explanation to the second show cause notice, the second Respondent/employee has stated that the Secretary, Kottaimayan has committed misconduct and as such, he is innocent. 25. The learned Counsel for the second Respondent/employee puts forward the argument that the facts mentioned in Ex.W.1 go to show that the Secretary, Kottaimayan, paid the misappropriated amount in full and therefore, this will prove that he alone is responsible for the misconduct and further that the charge of connivance or criminal breach of trust against the second Respondent/employee have not been proved and the loss of confidence can never be attributed against the second Respondent/employee in the present case. 26. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/employee is that the first Respondent/Labour Court has rightly mentioned in the award in I.D. No. 159 of 1997 that if at all, the mischief committed by the second Respondent/employee is that he has not informed the act to the superiors, etc and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 27. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Society submits that the order of dismissal passed by the President of the Petitioner/Society on 16.05.1997 against the second Respondent/employee is a valid one and in fact, the second Respondent/employee on 28.12.1995 has given a confessional statement before the Special Officer of the Petitioner/Society interalia stating that the Special Officer of the Petitioner/Society has inspected the Petitioner/Society on 27.12.1995 and found that for the jewel loan Nos. 150, 152, 310, 365, 371, 382, 463, 723, 826, 945, 659, 717, 1056, 1204, 1229, 1237, 1362, 1374, 38, 648, 518, 1163 and 1859, the principal amount of Rs. 150, 152, 310, 365, 371, 382, 463, 723, 826, 945, 659, 717, 1056, 1204, 1229, 1237, 1362, 1374, 38, 648, 518, 1163 and 1859, the principal amount of Rs. 3,37,700/- and the interest thereto along with the other expenditure have been received in cash by the Petitioner's/Society's Secretary, Kottaimayan from the members concerned and for which, the receipts have not been issued, but the same has been entered into the jewel loan ledger and the jewels have been returned and the fact that the principal amount, interest and other expenditures have been utilised by the Secretary without issuing receipts which is known to him very well and since the Secretary is a higher officer and further, he has assured him that the aforesaid amounts will be remitted by him to the Petitioner/Society and as such, he has not informed the Special Officer of the Petitioner/Society. 28. In the aforesaid confessional statement of the second Respondent/employee dated 28.12.1995, it is clearly mentioned by the second Respondent/employee that he has given the aforesaid confessional statement without anybody's inducement and he has given the same in a good disposition state of mind and also that, the Domestic Enquiry Officer in his findings, has clearly found that the charges 1 to 5 levelled against him have been held to be proved and as such, the award passed by the first Respondent/Labour Court in directing the reinstatement of the second Respondent/employee with continuity of service and backwages is not valid in law. 29. The Petitioner/Society cites the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, (2007) 1 SCC 224 wherein it is held as follows: 22. In the present case the Appellant acted beyond his authority in breach of the Bank's regulation. Regulation 3(1) of the Bank's Regulations required that every officer of the Bank at all times takes all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be unbecoming of a bank officer. It is a case of loss of confidence in the officer by the bank. It is a case of loss of confidence in the officer by the bank. In such a situation, it would be a futile exercise of judicial review to embark upon the decision of the disciplinary authority removing the officer from service, preceded by an enquiry, and to direct the bank to take back the officer in whom the bank has lost confidence, unless the decision to remove the officer is tainted with mala fides, or in violation of principles of natural justice and prejudice to the officer is made out. No such case is made out in the present case. 23. In the result, this appeal being devoid of merits is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 30. He also relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India and Ors. v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, 2007 LLR 1, wherein it is laid down thus: It was impermissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence as produced in the enquiry which was duly considered by the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as such the finding of the High Court on facts, runs to the teeth of the evidence on record hence the impugned judgment of the High Court in setting aside the orders of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority which are restored by the Apex Court. A bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. If a bank officer commits a misconduct pertaining to his personal needs against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and does not deserve to be dealt with leniently. 31. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/employee that after the insertion of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the first Respondent/Labour Court, Madurai, has a right to sit in appeal over the findings of the Enquiry Officer and since the findings of the first Respondent/Labour Court, Madurai, are finding of fact in I.D. No. 159 of 1997, they need not be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction. To lend support to his contention, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in The Management of United India Shoe Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. To lend support to his contention, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in The Management of United India Shoe Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and C. Ramalingam, (2006) 1 LLJ 958, at page 959, at paragraphs 3 to 5, it is observed as hereunder: 3. After the insertion of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has a right to sit in appeal over the findings of the enquiry officer which it earlier could not do. Hence the Labour Court can re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence and it has done so in this case. The findings of the Labour Court are findings of fact and we cannot interfere with the findings of fact in writ jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the Appellant then submitted that the Labour Court has not set aside the findings on the charge of pasting posters in the toilet. A perusal of the award of the Labour Court shows that the Labour Court has observed that this charge appears to be very trivial. On the facts of the case, while we dismiss this writ appeal we give a warning to the workman concerned not to commit such acts in future. No costs. Consequently, WAMP No. 3667/2004 is also dismissed. 32. In the explanation submitted by the second Respondent/employee dated 10.04.1996, it is mentioned that as per the charge of the Special Officer of the Petitioner/Society dated 21.03.1996, he being the Clerk having the joint responsibility along with the Secretary in respect of jewel loan, without verifying the Jewel Loan Register as to whether proper receipts have been made and the same being entered into the Register in regard to the redeeming of jewels, has released the jewels to the members concerned by fully believing the Secretary of the Petitioner/Society and this misconduct has been committed by him out of ignorance based on belief and further, the act of not entering the Savings Account amount as found in the Day Book Register, in the Cash Register, is a mistake committed by him on account of his negligence. 33. 33. The Domestic Enquiry Officer, in his enquiry report dated 07.12.1996, has found that the second Respondent/employee who is jointly responsible for the jewel loan, has not informed the cheating acts of the Secretary of the Petitioner/Society on different dates to the higher officials and to the Special Officer of the Petitioner/Society and only during inspection of the Special Officer on 27.12.1995, these misdeeds have been found out and further that, the jewel loan redeeming amounts have not been credited in the Day Book Register and the Subsidiary Day Book Register and a sum of Rs. 3,65,861.65 being the jewel loan redeeming amount together with interest and other items, have been received, but the same has not been brought into the Petitioner's/Society's account and for the misappropriation done by the Secretary, the second Respondent/employee has connived with him. 34. Further, the second Respondent/employee has admitted this charge and in the course of evidence, has deposed that he has known the misdeeds committed by the Secretary of the Petitioner/Society, but he has not informed the same to the higher officials and when the Special Officer has found out the misdeeds of the Secretary, then on 28.12.1995, he has accepted the charges and has given a voluntary confessional statement and therefore, the first charge levelled against the second Respondent/employee has been proved. 35. Also, the second charge levelled against the second Respondent/employee is based on the first charge and as such, the second charge levelled against the second Respondent/employee by the Petitioner/Society is a correct one as held by the Domestic Enquiry Officer. 36. As regards the third charge that the second Respondent/employee has connived or aided with the Secretary by not bringing a sum of Rs. 1,400/- dated 10.08.1994 from the Subsidiary Day Book Register to the Cash Register and also shown less amount on hand, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that this charge has been admitted by the second Respondent/employee in his evidence and as such the third charge has been proved on the basis of the Management documents and also on the admission of the second Respondent/employee. 37. 37. In regard to the fourth charge that because of the charges 1 to 3, the second Respondent/employee has violated the Petitioner's/Society's discipline and conduct rules and further in regard to the fifth charge that the second Respondent/employee is responsible for the Petitioner/Society losing confidence on him, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that these charges are based on the charges 1 to 3 and inasmuch as the charges 1 to 3 have been proved against the second Respondent/employee, the charges 4 and 5 levelled against him by the Petitioner/Society are found to be a proper one. 38. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Uthamapalayam, in his surcharge proceedings u/s 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, dated 30.06.1999, has among other things stated that the former Secretary of the Society, Thiru.K. Kottaimayan, in his statement dated 22.06.1999, has admitted that for the interest amount of Rs. 44,472.70, he is fully responsible and has exonerated the second Respondent/employee from the surcharge proceedings. Further, for the interest sum of Rs. 44,472.70, Thiru.K. Kottaimayan, has been directed to pay the interest at 18% from 01.03.1997 till the date of payment being made to the Petitioner/Society. Significantly, K. Kottaimayan, in his statement dated 22.06.1999, has stated that a sum of Rs. 44,472.70 mentioned in the surcharge notice towards interest will have to be paid by him and that will be paid by him before 15.07.1999 and this has been made mention of by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Uthamapalayam in his proceedings dated 30.06.1999. 39. At this stage, this Court aptly points out the decision of the Division Bench in M. Vittal Vs. Disciplinary Authority and Regional Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad and Others, (2003) 1 LLJ 811, wherein it is held thus: Appellant-bank employee could no where make out a case of innocence on his part, either in the domestic enquiry or before a single Judge or even before the present Division Bench which heard this writ appeal. It observed that none of the contentions raised by the Appellant merited any consideration. The Appellant's fraud of withdrawing a little over Rs. 8400/- from the account of a dead customer was clearly established. There was no substance in the plea of the Appellant that no opportunity was given to him at the time of enquiry. The punishment of the Appellant was also held to be not excessive. 40. The Appellant's fraud of withdrawing a little over Rs. 8400/- from the account of a dead customer was clearly established. There was no substance in the plea of the Appellant that no opportunity was given to him at the time of enquiry. The punishment of the Appellant was also held to be not excessive. 40. Also, this Court worth recalls the decision in Subhash Chand Jain Vs. Regional Manager, PNB and Another, (2003) 104 DLT 413 (2), wherein it is laid down as follows: Petitioner who was in the employment of the Hindustan Bank (which merged with Respondent-Punjab National Bank) impugned in this petition an adverse award of the Industrial Tribunal, granting him no relief against dismissal from service. The High Court dismissed the petition. It observed that the reliance of the Petitioner on Clause 19.4 of the Bipartite Settlement was misplaced. The bar under that clause against initiation of departmental proceedings for one year from the date of misconduct would not operate if the charges of misconduct in such proceedings were different from those for which the delinquent official was prosecuted before the criminal Court. In this case the charges against the Petitioner in the criminal trial were cheating and fraud, whereas in the departmental enquiry the charges against him were negligence and dereliction of duties. 41. Further, a bank employee is required to exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity when he deals with money. If a bank employee works against the interest of the bank, then his dismissal is a justifiable one, in the considered opinion of this Court. 42. Normally, a Court of law does not substitute the punishment unless they are shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed. Moreover, the award of punishment is a primary function of a disciplinary authority. The High Court will not interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded when it is based on evidence. The quantum of amount misappropriated by an employee is an irrelevant one when there is fiduciary relationship between the employer and the employee. When an employer has lost the confidence of an employee in employment, then the employee's retention should not be directed by a Court of law, as opined by this Court. 43. It is well settled that once the charges against a delinquent employee have been proved, the quantum of punishment is to be decided by the employer. When an employer has lost the confidence of an employee in employment, then the employee's retention should not be directed by a Court of law, as opined by this Court. 43. It is well settled that once the charges against a delinquent employee have been proved, the quantum of punishment is to be decided by the employer. When the major charges are proved against the bank employee, then the compassion has no role to play. As a matter of fact, the jurisdiction of a Court of law to interfere with the quantum of punishment would be exercised only when inter alia it is found that the said punishment is found to be grossly disproportionate, as per the decision in Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 2006(1) L.L.N.461. 44. If an enquiry is fair, a Labour Court has no power to interfere punishment as per the decision in The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union Vs. The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 201 . 45. Further, this Court pertinently quotes the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra, Ltd. v.N.B. Naravade, 2005(1) L.L.N. 1074 , wherein it is observed thus: A Labour Court should interfere with the punishment u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act only when it is disturbing to the conscience and it is highly disproportionate to the misconduct. 46. It is to be borne in mind that as per Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a Labour Court should act as a revisional Court and not an appellate Court, in the considered view of this Court. 47. As far as the present case is concerned, the charges levelled against the second Respondent/employee to the effect that "(A) he failed to make necessary entries in the records of the society for the receipt of Rs. 3,65,761-65/- towards redemption of jewel loans, released the pledged jewels from custody, thereby, he connived with the secretary in misappropriation of those amount;(B) That he, by suppressing the above misdeeds from the knowledge of the Special Officer, he deselected from his duties and responsibilities; (C) That he, failed to transact the receipt of Rs. 3,65,761-65/- towards redemption of jewel loans, released the pledged jewels from custody, thereby, he connived with the secretary in misappropriation of those amount;(B) That he, by suppressing the above misdeeds from the knowledge of the Special Officer, he deselected from his duties and responsibilities; (C) That he, failed to transact the receipt of Rs. 1,400/- on 10.08.1994, reduced the cash balance, thereby, helped the secretary to commit misappropriation of the said amount; (D) That he, by his willful acts and omissions undermined the morale and discipline of the society; and (E) That, by his above commissions and omissions, the management lost confidence that reposed on him;" have been held to be proved in the Domestic Enquiry by the Domestic Enquiry Officer. 48. However, the first Respondent/Labour Court, Madurai, while passing an award in I.D. No. 159 of 1997 filed by the second Respondent/employee dated 27.10.2004, has among other things, at paragraph 30 observed that 'the Respondent Management Deputy Registrar the competent authority have issued a proceeding fixing the liability on the then Secretary K. Kottaimayan and absolving the liability of the Petitioner. 49. Therefore what else remains to proceed against the Petitioner (second Respondent/employee) terming its as a misconduct. Hence it is under these circumstances the word used in the counter against the Petitioner namely connivance is unwanted. Moreover the irregularity has happened on one occasion. It is subsequently found that the Petitioner (second Respondent/employee) acted in connivance with the Secretary goes to show that the irregularity committed by the Petitioner is only after the commission of an offence by the Secretary. The mischief committed by the Petitioner is that he has not informed the act of the Secretary to the higher officials, etc. and further the loss to the Respondent Management (writ Petitioner) has been paid by the Secretary. Hence it I under these circumstances no misconduct would arise on the part of the Petitioner in regard to the charges levelled against him. 50. Also, in paragraph 31, the first Respondent/Labour Court has stated the following: 31. It is no doubt the Petitioner has not committed in fraud misappropriation and grave misconduct. The non-information of the circumstances for committing fraud misappropriation has let to the Management to fix the liability on the Petitioner. 50. Also, in paragraph 31, the first Respondent/Labour Court has stated the following: 31. It is no doubt the Petitioner has not committed in fraud misappropriation and grave misconduct. The non-information of the circumstances for committing fraud misappropriation has let to the Management to fix the liability on the Petitioner. The punishment for the connivance of the Petitioner along with the Secretary is the termination even after the payment of the full amount by the Secretary Kottaimayan. and has held that the punishment of termination passed by the Respondent/Management (writ Petitioner) against the Petitioner (second Respondent/employee) is not proportionate and therefore, the first Respondent/Labour Court inclined to invoke Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, to interfere with the quantum of punishment and found that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner (second Respondent/employee) is disproportionate to the guilt committed by him and consequently, set aside the termination order passed against the second Respondent/employee dated 16.05.1997 and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages and thereby allowed the I.D. No. 159 of 1997. 51. It is to be pointed out that in the instant case on hand, in the Domestic Enquiry, the charges levelled against the second Respondent/employee by the Petitioner/Society have been found to be proved and as such, it is for the Petitioner/Society to decide the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the second Respondent/employee and in the preset case on hand, the writ Petitioner/Society has issued the order of dismissal dated 16.05.1997 to the second Respondent/employee. The conduct of the Domestic Enquiry Officer against the second Respondent/employee is a fair and reasonable one and when that be the case, the first Respondent/Labour Court has misdirected itself while passing the award in I.D. No. 159 of 1997 to interfere with the punishment of dismissal dated 16.05.1997 ordered by the Petitioner/Society. Moreover, the principles of natural justice have been followed in the Domestic Enquiry. 52. Causing a financial loss either by direct act of a particular employee or by the act of connivance or committing or abetting another person and committing deliberate irregularities will entail punishment of dismissal and the said punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. Moreover, the principles of natural justice have been followed in the Domestic Enquiry. 52. Causing a financial loss either by direct act of a particular employee or by the act of connivance or committing or abetting another person and committing deliberate irregularities will entail punishment of dismissal and the said punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. To put it precisely, the second Respondent/employee (as a Clerk) with the Petitioner/Society acts in a fiduciary relationship between the writ Petitioner/Society (employer) and himself, by conniving or aiding or abetting the misconduct of K. Kottaimayan, the Secretary of the Petitioner/Society. Further, this Court points out that a blame worthy conduct of an employee is a misconduct. 53. The second Respondent/employee has not informed the higher officials about the misdeeds of the Secretary of the Petitioner/Society, K. Kottaimayan and only through his confessional statement/admission statement dated 28.12.1995 when the Special Officer of the Petitioner/Society has made a surprise inspection to the Petitioner/Society, the act of misappropriation done by K. Kottaimayan by not remitting the principal amount of Rs. 3,37,700/- and interest etc., which have been received from the Members for which no receipt has been prepared, but in the Day Book Register, the same has been credited into and that the jewels have been returned, has been found out and the second Respondent/employee has also stated that because of the fact that the Petitioner's Secretary is his higher official and further, since the Secretary has assured him that he will remit the amount into the Petitioner/Society, he has not informed the same to the Special Officer of the Petitioner/Society, goes to show that the second Respondent/employee has connived or aided or abetted the misdeeds or misconducts of the said Secretary of the Petitioner/Society and certainly, he has lost confidence of his employer and if he is retained in employment, then it will be against the interest of the Petitioner/Society and as such, the reinstatement of the second Respondent/employee with continuity of service and backwages as ordered by the first Respondent/Labour Court in I.D. No. 159 of 1997 dated 27.10.2004 is a perverse and unreasonable one and not based on proper appreciation of material, oral and available evidence on record, in the considered opinion of this Court. 54. 54. In a case of this nature, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor for awarding the quantum of punishment and the second Respondent/employee being the employee of the Petitioner/Society, has not exercised an impeccable standard of honesty and integrity and has acted against the interest of the Petitioner/Society and therefore, the Petitioner/Society has rightly dismissed the second Respondent/employee from service, as opined by this Court. 55. When the Petitioner/Society has lost the confidence upon the second Respondent/employee, then in such an event, the first Respondent/Labour Court cannot exercise its discretion and set aside the order of termination dated 16.05.1997 and to order reinstatement of the second Respondent/employee with continuity of service and backwages, it is not a prudent one, in the considered opinion of this Court and since the Domestic Enquiry has been conducted in a fair and reasonable manner and also followed by the principles of natural justice, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the first Respondent/Labour Court has not power to interfere with the punishment awarded by the Petitioner/Society and the contra view taken by the first Respondent/Labour Court in setting aside the order of termination dated 16.05.1997 and passing an award by directing the Petitioner/Society to reinstate the second Respondent/employee, is an illogical and illegal one and this Court interferes with the award of the first Respondent/Labour Court in I.D. No. 159 of 1997 dated 27.10.2004, in the writ jurisdiction and sets aside the same to prevent an aberration of justice and restores the punishment of dismissal dated 16.05.1997 imposed by the Petitioner/Society and allows this writ petition to promote the substantial cause of justice. 56. In the result, the writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs and the award passed by the first Respondent/Labour Court in I.D. No. 159 of 1997 dated 27.10.2004 is set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned by this Court in this writ petition. Resultantly, the punishment of dismissal dated 16.05.1997 imposed on the second Respondent/employee by the Petitioner/Society is restored.