Judgment :- 1. Both the writ petitions challenges the very same award dated 21.05.2007 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D.No.36/2006. By the impugned award, the Labour Court gave the relief of reinstatement to the workman, with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, but without backwages. While the Management of State Bank of India represented by its Assistant General Manager, Region-III, Tiruchirapalli was aggrieved about the grant of reinstatement with service continuity, the workman was aggrieved about the denial of backwages. Since both the writ petitions challenges the very same award, they are grouped together and a common order is passed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as "Management" and "Workman", as the case may be. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr. K. Sankaran, learned counsel for the State Bank of India and Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the workman. 4. The case of the workman was that he is an Ex-serviceman. After rendering 15 years of service in the Indian Air Force, he got discharged from service and after passing a competitive examination conducted by the Banking Service Recruitment Board, under the Ex-serviceman quota, he was selected and appointed as Clerk cum Cashier with effect from 17.11.1988. He was posted to work at the Athanavur Branch of the Bank. His services were also confirmed on 17.05.1989. The workman purchased two National Savings Certificates for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1,000/-from Tirupathur Post Office through an agent. The certificates got matured on 17.03.1998. While he was working in the Athanavur Branch, due to certain family necessity, he obtained loan on the NSC bonds from the Athanavur Branch during 1992. The monthly installments with interest towards loan repayment was debited from the salary of the workman and credited to the loan account periodically. On 13.03.1997, he was transferred to Thirukoilur Branch. Consequent upon his transfer, the loan accounts, including the NSC bonds, were also transferred to the Thirukoilur Branch as per usual practice. The regular installments of the loan amounts were debited from the salary accounts, to the loan account, by the Bank even at the transferred Branch. After joining the new branch, he totally forgot about the maturity date of the bonds. The regular installments of the loan amounts were debited from the salary accounts, to the loan account, by the Bank even at the transferred Branch. After joining the new branch, he totally forgot about the maturity date of the bonds. His gas connection, which was obtained in the earlier place at Thirupathur was not transferred and therefore, he went to Jolarpettai in person on 16.04.1998 and came back to Thirukoilur on 17.04.1998. As there was no sufficient leave to his credit, he requested the Branch Accountant to grant him one day sick leave on 16.04.1998. The Branch Accountant on coming to know that he was going to Jolarpettai, handed over him the short credit schedule along with the NSC bonds in a cover addressed to the Branch Manager, Athanavur and requested the workman to hand over the same to the Branch Manager, Athanavur and get the proceeds, as it will save time and interest. As per the instruction of the Branch Accountant, Thirukoilur, the workman handed over the cover to the Branch Manager, Athanavur. The Branch Manager, Athanavur, after cancelling the bonds, directed the workman to go to Thirupathur for further action. At Thirupathur Branch, when the workman enquired what should be done next, he was informed to contact the NSC agent, who will do the needful. Accordingly, the NSC bonds were handed over to the agent and they were deposited in the Thirupathur Post Office. After realising the proceeds, the agent gave the realised amount to the workman on the same day evening, with its enclosures. As per his original plan, after completing his work, he was planning to go back to Thirukoilur on 17.04.1998. At that time, the workman's wife and children were at Bangalore during Bakrid. Since 18th and 19th were happened to be Saturday and Sunday, the workman thought to leave Bangalore to meet his family by availing two days leave. In continuation of the changed plan, after completing his work at Thirupathur, he got the money realized on the NSC bond in the side box of the motorbike and proceeded to Thirupathur. The motor cycle, in which he was riding, met with an accident while he was travelling from Jolarpettai to Vaniyambadi. In the accident, the workman suffered multiple injuries on the right hand and became unconscious. However, a friend of the workman by Dr. The motor cycle, in which he was riding, met with an accident while he was travelling from Jolarpettai to Vaniyambadi. In the accident, the workman suffered multiple injuries on the right hand and became unconscious. However, a friend of the workman by Dr. J. Prasanna, who was also happened to be travelled towards that side saw him and admitted him in the Nikin Hospital, belonging to Dr. S. Dilipan, who was the uncle of Dr. J. Prasanna. In the hospital, the petitioner was unconscious for three days. Consequently he could not extend the leave from 17.04.1998, 18.04.1998 and 19.04.1998. On 11.05.1998, the workman gave a telegram to the Branch requesting for extension of leave. It was only after regaining consciousness, he realised that all his belongings, including the amount collected from the NSC agent and kept in the motor-bike side box were missing. As he was advised to take continuous bed rest, he could not inform the Bank immediately. After recovery, the workman joined duty on 20.06.1998 and submitted leave letters for the period from 16.04.1998 to 19.06.1998. The leave letters were supported by the medical certificates. There was no damage to the motorbike and hence no claim was lodged with the insurance company. Even the friend, who had admitted him in the hospital, did not give any police complaint. As he lost the money received after realising the NSC bonds, he could not immediately repay the loan availed by him. In the meantime, the Bank was recovering the principle and interest amount from his salary. On 05.09.1998, the workman repaid the entire loan amount and the loan account was closed. However, when the facts were thus, the respondent Bank, without any justification, suspended the workman from service on 27.05.1999. After a period of seven months, a charge memo dated 09.12.1999 was issued to him. The first three charges related to the workman receiving the NSC certificate and the short credit register and encashment of NSC bonds and other related issues. The fourth charge related to the medical certificate submitted by him with reference to the period of absence. After his explanation, an enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer found that the fourth charge was not proved and charges 1 to 3 were proved. The fourth charge related to the medical certificate submitted by him with reference to the period of absence. After his explanation, an enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer found that the fourth charge was not proved and charges 1 to 3 were proved. When workman's explanation was called for, a second show cause notice was issued to him on 19.05.2001 and ultimately, by an order dated 05.07.2001, he was dismissed from service. The appeal preferred by the workman was dismissed by the appellate authority. 5. As against the dismissal, the workman raised an industrial dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. The Conciliation Officer, after issuing notice to the parties, as he could not bring about mediation, sent a failure report to the Central Government. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide order dated 06.06.2006 referred the following issue for adjudication by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai: "Whether the punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f. 5.7.2001 imposed on Shri A. Mohammed Shamshuddeen by the management of State Bank of India, Trichy is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?" 6. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai, registered the dispute as I.D.No.36 of 2006 and issued notice to the parties. The workman filed a claim statement dated 28.07.2006 and the Management filed a counter statement dated 01.11.2006. The workman filed a reply statement dated 10.12.2006. 7. Before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai, on behalf of the workman, 12 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W1 to W12. On the side of the Management, two documents were filed and marked as Exs.M1 and M2 and no witnesses were examined on either side. 8. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Chennai, upon analysis of the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that the workman cannot question the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the imposition of the punishment by the Disciplinary Authority. On the other hand, it found that the punishment imposed for dismissing the workman was not justified. On the other hand, it found that the punishment imposed for dismissing the workman was not justified. In para 12 of the award, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, for denial of backwages, has observed as follows: "12.) In view of my foregoing findings that the imposition of punishment of dismissal on the petitioner is not proportionate to the charges framed against him, I find the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service, But, in this case, though the petitioner alleged that he is innocent, he has not established before the domestic Tribunal about his innocence. On the other hand, when he has admitted that he has taken the NSC which was deposited by him to the bank for collection through Athanavur branch and though he has realized the amount he has not informed and the accident which has taken place to him near Vaniyampadi, he has not informed even after his recovery to the Respondent / Bank. Under such circumstances, I find he has also done some mistake. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that he is innocent. Therefore, though I order for reinstatement of the Petitioner into service, he is not entitled to any back wages. Therefore, I direct the Respondent / Management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, but without any back wages." 9. Now, since both sides are before this Court attacking the findings of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, it has to be seen whether the findings rendered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court was legally justified. 10. Mr. K. Sankaran, learned counsel for the Management submitted that having held that the charges were proved and the enquiry conducted was fair and proper, it is not a fit case where any interference is called for. He has also stated that the story put up by the workman was not believable and even after his discharge from the hospital, he did not inform the Management about the loss of money. In fact, he has not made any complaint to the police to show that the story was a cooked up story. 11. In this context, the learned counsel for the Management relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in ENGINE VALVES LTD. VS. In fact, he has not made any complaint to the police to show that the story was a cooked up story. 11. In this context, the learned counsel for the Management relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in ENGINE VALVES LTD. VS. LABOUR COURT, MADRAS AND ANOTHER [ 1991 (1) LLJ 372 ] for contending that in the absence of reasons to invoke the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it would render the very exercise of powers arbitrary and perverse. 12. The learned counsel for the Management further referred to a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in JANATHA BAZAR (SOUTH KANARA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES LTD.) ETC. VS. SECRETARY, SAHAKARI NOUKARARA SANGH ETC. [ AIR 2000 SC 3129 ] for contending that in case of charges of breach of trust and misappropriation, reinstating the employee in service was not justified. It is true even in case where the misappropriation was with respect to a very small amount. 13. The learned counsel for the Management thereafter referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in INDIAN BANK VS. S.MADHAVAN [ 2005 (5) CTC 245 ] for contending that if the charges framed for fraud and misappropriation be proved, then the question of any relief cannot be granted and the power of the Court to interfere with the punishment does not exist. 14. The learned counsel for the Management further referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in VIJAYAN, G. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER [2007 (3) LLJ 546] for contending that industrial Courts will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exists sufficient reasons. 15. The learned counsel for the Management thereafter referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF WEST BOKARO COLLIERY OF M/S. TISCO LTD. VS. THE CONCERNED WORKMAN, RAM PRAVESH SINGH [ AIR 2008 SC 1162 ] for contending that the Labour Court (Tribunal) cannot act like an appellate court and if the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer is based upon evidence, then the Court should not substitute its own views for the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. 16. The learned counsel for the Management further referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. 16. The learned counsel for the Management further referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. KAMRUDDIN [ 2009 (3) LLN 53 ] for contending that the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act should be exercised judiciously. 17. The learned counsel for the Management also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR VS. NEMI CHAND NALWAYA [ 2011 (4) SCC 584 ] wherein the High Court proceeded as if it was sitting in an appeal over departmental enquiry and interfered with the findings on a vague assumption. 18. The learned counsel for the Management also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE BANK OF MYSORE AND OTHERS VS. M.C. KRISHNAPPA [ 2011 (7) SCC 325 ] for contending that the punishment is primarily a function of the Management and the Court could rarely interfere with the quantum of punishment. 19. Per contra, Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the workman referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI AND OTHERS VS. JAI BHAGWAN [ 2011 (6) SCC 376 ] for contending that in the absence of a definite or a clear proof supporting the case of the Management, it is different to draw a finding and it could be held as the case of no evidence. 20. The learned counsel for the workman also further referred to an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5976 of 2009 in THE MANAGEMENT OF MACLELLAN VS. M.RAVI AND OTHERS [decided on 23.09.2011] for contending that after the introduction of Section 11-A, the power of the Labour Court is that of an Appellate Court and it can also re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion and in a given case, he could also interfere with the penalty, if it is disproportionate. He also referred to the very same judgment for contending that if the Labour Court do not exercise its power properly, then the High Court can also exercise the power and a reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in GUJARAT STEEL TUBES LIMITED VS. GUJARAJ STEEL TUBES MAZDOOR SABHA [ 1980 (2) SCC 593 ]. 21. He also referred to the very same judgment for contending that if the Labour Court do not exercise its power properly, then the High Court can also exercise the power and a reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in GUJARAT STEEL TUBES LIMITED VS. GUJARAJ STEEL TUBES MAZDOOR SABHA [ 1980 (2) SCC 593 ]. 21. A perusal of the impugned award clearly shows that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Chennai was wrong in holding that the workman is guilty of the charges. On the other hand, if the charge is that he mislead the Branch Accountant of the Athanavur Branch, nothing prevented the Bank from examining the Branch Accountant. The fact that leave was sanctioned supported by a medical certificate and the fourth charge was held not proved and there is no further action on that ground, then necessarily the story of accident put forth by the workman was believable and once the accident is found to be proved, there is no other evidence to reject the stand of the workman that the money that was kept in the box of motorbike was stolen during the accident. In fact, immediately after the accident, when he reported for work, he has repaid the entire loan amount and closed the loan account. The accident as well as the consequential injuries sustained by the workman were proved in the enquiry. At a particular time of accident, mind will not react in anybody's case. Only on the ground that the workman was not informed the bank about the accident, the Bank cannot deny the version put forth by the workman. When the workman had taken loan and if there is any default, it is open to the Bank to foreclose the account and ask the workman to repay the entire amount. On the other hand, it is the Branch Accountant who gave the workman the NSC bonds along with the register for appropriate entry and it is the Branch Manager who met him to encash the bond through the agent after making necessary entries. Therefore, it cannot be said that the workman had the intention to misappropriate the amount. The Bank's contention that everything was preplanned cannot be accepted, because nobody will get hurt. On the other hand, the accident suffered by the workman was not anticipated. Therefore, it cannot be said that the workman had the intention to misappropriate the amount. The Bank's contention that everything was preplanned cannot be accepted, because nobody will get hurt. On the other hand, the accident suffered by the workman was not anticipated. The mere fact that no police complaint was given is also not invalidated the stand taken by the workman, because it is not uncommon and that people are afraiding to come to police station, without there being any further benefit for the complaint and it will not be nothing, but a harassment. It is also possible that since there was no damage to the vehicle, the question of claiming insurance amount will not arise. 22. Under the said circumstances, the findings of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Chennai, with reference to the report of the Enquiry Officer submitted during the domestic enquiry, cannot be sustained. On the other hand, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai, ought to have disagreed with the same, instead of rendering a different finding. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that once the charges are held to be not proved, then the normal relief of reinstatement with consequential benefits should have been granted. In the present case, the only question that has to be decided is as to whether the workman is entitled for full backwages. However, this Court do not find that the workman is not entitled for full backwages. The Supreme Court in its judgment cited supra has granted only 50% of the backwages. Further, during the pendency of the proceedings, the workman was also in receipt of the wages. In view of the same, the impugned award has been modified and the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and other attendant benefits and with backwages at the rate of 50%. 23. In view of the above, W.P.No.33212 of 2007 stands dismissed and W.P.No.9579 of 2008 stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.