JUDGMENT : S. Siri Jagan, J. These writ petitions are filed by the workman and management respectively, involved in I.D. No. 57 of 2003 on the files of the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. Both of them are challenging the award passed by the Tribunal in that I.D., to the extent it is against them. The issue referred for adjudication was: Whether the dismissal of Sri. M.K. Surendra Babu by the Management of the Kodungalloor Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 102, P.O. Kodungallur is justifiable? If not, what are the benefits he is entitled to get? The workman was originally imposed a punishment of reduction from the post of Manager/Chief Accountant to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant, debarring him from holding the post of Manager for two years. In respect of the same set of facts, there was a criminal case also, in which the workman was originally convicted. On such conviction, a memo was issued to the workman on 31.7.2000, directing him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The said proceedings ultimately resulted in imposing the workman the punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 24.11.2000. That led to the industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, which was adjudicated by the Tribunal as I.A. No. 57/2003. Before the Tribunal, the management raised a preliminary contention that the workman is not a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. They also sought to sustain the dismissal from service on merits. The Tribunal found that at the time of dismissal from service, the workman was holding the post of Head Clerk/Accountant, that he was never assigned duties of branch manager and that the management had not adduced any evidence to show that the workman was discharging the duties and functions of a supervisory personnel so as to take him out of the purview of the definition of 'workman', in the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal further found that since the workman was earlier imposed with a punishment for the same misconduct, another punishment could not have been imposed on the workman pursuant to the conviction by the criminal court for the same misconduct, especially when in appeal the conviction was set aside by the Sessions Court, which acquittal was confirmed by this Court in further appeal by the management. Pursuant thereto, the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity in service and back-wages from 1.8.2005. The management is challenging that award (which Ext. P1 In both writ petitions) as a whole and the workman is challenging that part of the award, wherein back-wages were limited from 1.8.2005. 2. The contention of the management is mainly regarding the question as to whether the workman is a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly, at the time of dismissal from service, the workman was working as a Mead Clerk/Accountant and he was debarred from holding the post of manager as a punishment for misconduct for the same misconduct in the earlier disciplinary proceedings. That being so, it was for the management to prove that the duties and functions of Head Clerk/Accountant involve supervisory functions. The bank is a Co-operative Bank. They must certainly have orders/circulars specifying the duties and functions of a Head Clerk/Accountant. No documents have been produced by the management either before the Tribunal or before this Court. The learned counsel for the management would submit that documents already on record before the Industrial Tribunal themselves are sufficient to prove their contention. They would rely on Ext. M4. It is a resolution of the board meeting dated 5.12.1977, which requires Head Clerk/Accountant to attend to duties of branch manager whenever required. But, after having debarred the petitioner from holding the post of manager for two years, I do not think that Ext. M4 can be relied upon to show either that the workman was working as manager or that the post of Head Clerk/Accountant involved supervisory duties and functions in the year 2000 when the workman was admittedly working only as a Head Clerk/Accountant and not as a Branch Manager. 3. Ext. M7 staff pattern would show that in the hierarchy, Head Clerk/Accountant is the 4th from the top. Even that will not prove anything, unless documents are produced to prove that the duties and functions of Head Clerk/Accountant involve supervisory duties. 4. Counsel for the management would rely on the evidence of the witnesses of the management to show that the workman was discharging supervisory functions as well. Their contention is that there were other employees working under the workman and the workman was supervising their working. But the names of those employees are not mentioned. 4. Counsel for the management would rely on the evidence of the witnesses of the management to show that the workman was discharging supervisory functions as well. Their contention is that there were other employees working under the workman and the workman was supervising their working. But the names of those employees are not mentioned. If supervisory functions were being discharged by the workman, then, certainly, he would have responsibilities like sanctioning of leave to persons working under him and the like, which can be only be written orders, copies of which are not forthcoming. In the above circumstances, I do not find anything wrong with the finding of the Tribunal that the management has not proved by adducing evidence that the workman was discharging the duties and functions of a supervisory person. 5. The management feebly contended that the workman was guilty of the misconduct involving misappropriation and therefore the dismissal from service was justifiable. But, it is not disputed before me that the workman was actually imposed with the punishment of reduction from the cadre of Manager/Chief accountant to that of Head Clerk/Accountant as a punishment for the same misconduct and at the time of dismissal, he was actually working only as a Head Clerk/Accountant. The management had started fresh disciplinary proceedings based on the conviction by the criminal court. Even if the conviction by a criminal court can be the basis for any further punishment, it is not necessary to look into that question now since the Session's Court and this Court found the workman not guilty in the criminal proceedings. In fact, as stated in the award itself, the witness of the management himself has admitted that between the earlier punishment and the dismissal in 2000, the service of the workman was very satisfactory and no fresh misconducts have been alleged against him. He further stated that had the workman not been punished by the criminal court, he would have continued in service without any objection whatsoever. That being so, I do not find any merit in the contention of the management. I fully agree with the Tribunal that the second punishment of dismissal from service for the misconduct is patently arbitrary and unsustainable. 6. The claim of the workman is for full back-wages from 24.11.2000 when he was dismissed from service. By now, he has already crossed the age of superannuation. I fully agree with the Tribunal that the second punishment of dismissal from service for the misconduct is patently arbitrary and unsustainable. 6. The claim of the workman is for full back-wages from 24.11.2000 when he was dismissed from service. By now, he has already crossed the age of superannuation. The management has obtained a stay of the award in their writ petition and they had been paying him wages u/s 178 of the Industrial Disputes Act till he attained the age of superannuation. The Tribunal has granted back-wages only from 1.8.2005. The management has not stated as to what is the magic of the date 1.8.2005. Admittedly, the workman was dismissed from service on 24.11.2000. As such, the workman is entitled to back-wages from that date. 7. Accordingly, Ext. P1 is modified holding that he will be entitled to the entire back-wages and not from 1.8.2005. In the above circumstances, W.P. (C) No. 16658/2006 is dismissed and W.P. (C) No. 10448/2006 is allowed modifying the award to the above extent. The back-wages after deducting the wages paid u/s 17B shall be paid within two months from today, failing which the same shall carry Interest from 21.12.2005 at the rate of 6% per annum.