JUDGMENT : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. 1. The writ petitioner is a Bank; it is aggrieved by Ext.P20 award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Ernakulam, the second respondent (the Labour Court). The first respondent was the petitioner's employee. While he was working as a Head Cashier, on 16.10.1996 the Manager noticed shortage of cash Rs. 42,977/-. When questioned, the employee admitted his lapse in writing and later, on 18.10.1996, paid the amount. 2. The Bank, on its part, initiated disciplinary proceedings, it issued Ext.P1 charge-sheet and Ext.P2 supplementary charge-sheet, later conducted an enquiry, had Ext.P10 enquiry report, and eventually passed Ext.P12 order of punishment. It dismissed the employee from service. Aggrieved, the employee filed an intra-bank appeal but without success. The appellate authority dismissed the employee's appeal through Ext.P13. Eventually, the employee filed Ext.P17 claim statement before the Labour Court, which rendered Ext.P20 award, the order of dismissal was modified to that of discharge with superannuation benefits. Aggrieved, the Bank has filed this writ petition for a certiorari against Ext.P20 order. 3. Sri Sadchith P. Kurup, the learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that the Labour Court has accepted the findings of the disciplinary committee in their entirety but has interfered with the order of punishment only on extraneous reasons-the reasons of sympathy. He has further submitted that, as the employee was a cashier in a commercial Bank, fidelity was of utmost importance, and any errant behaviour would have a telling effect on the confidence of the Bank's clientele. Insisting that the Labour Court's inference is uncalled for, the learned counsel has relied on Govindan A. vs. State Bank of Travancore, ILR 2016 (4) Kerala 345. 4. Per contra, Sri Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, the learned counsel appearing for the employee, has submitted that it is not a case of fraud. According to him, on 16.10.1996 there was a shortage in the cash handled by the employee. The shortage must have occasioned because of the employee's paying excess to any customer. Instead of adopting any evasive tactics, the employee, stresses the learned counsel, admitted his lapse and paid the amount within 48 hours. The learned counsel would have us conclude that the employee's conduct was bona-fide and the petitioner Bank suffered no loss. 5. The shortage must have occasioned because of the employee's paying excess to any customer. Instead of adopting any evasive tactics, the employee, stresses the learned counsel, admitted his lapse and paid the amount within 48 hours. The learned counsel would have us conclude that the employee's conduct was bona-fide and the petitioner Bank suffered no loss. 5. The learned counsel has taken me through Ext.P20 to contend that the Labour Court has taken into account all vital aspects before its concluding that the punishment inflicted on the employee is disproportionate. He has especially stressed that the employee had more than two decades of blemishless service and also earned his employer's appreciation for his commitment, say, of garnering deposits. 6. Eventually, the learned counsel has urged this Court not to disturb Ext.P20 award for, according to him, the scope of interference in a writ of certiorari is very much limited, and the error must be a jurisdictional one or so patent as to lead to manifest injustice. 7. The learned counsel, in support of his submissions, has relied on Kailash Nath Guptha vs. Enquiry Officer (R.K. Rai), Alahabad Bank & Others, AIR 2003 SC 1377 and Dev Singh vs. Panjab Development Corporation Ltd. and Another, AIR 2003 SC 3712 . 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent, apart from perusing the record. 9. Indeed, as has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Bank, the facts are not in dispute. Proportionality of punishment is the bone of contention. The employee has contended that the punishment inflicted on him was grossly disproportionate. The employee's contention found favour with the Labour Court. 10. As seen from the record, the Labour Court has not disturbed the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority. It has, on the other hand, concurred with the authority. But, to modify the punishment, it considered the employees' entire service and also the impecunious conditions his large family, including his physically challenged child, had been placed in. Under those circumstances, among other considerations, not to imperil the family's survival, the Labour Court, in the alternative, ordered that the employee be discharged, so that his terminal benefits would not be affected. 11. Under those circumstances, among other considerations, not to imperil the family's survival, the Labour Court, in the alternative, ordered that the employee be discharged, so that his terminal benefits would not be affected. 11. Though the learned counsel for the Bank has placed reliance on Govindan, a recent judgment of this Court, a perusal of the judgment shows that the employee in that case faced the allegation of committing a series of frauds as a bank employee. In the facts of the case, a learned Division Bench of this Court has observed that given the gravity of misconduct, an employee's past conduct is of no consequence. 12. On the other hand, in Kailash Nath Guptha, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered a case, more or less having factual parity with this case. The Court has first acknowledged in paragraph 11 that the court's power of interference with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited. It has, however, held that if the disciplinary authority has not taken note of factors having a bearing on the quantum of punishment, certainly the court can direct the employer to re-consider or, in an appropriate case, to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded. Adverting to the facts, the Apex Court has observed that there had never been a blemish in the employee's long past-service; neither irregularity nor misconduct was noticed, save the charges that invited the punishment. Indicating that the loss of Rs. 46,000/-, could be recovered from the employee, the Court found the punishment of dismissal harsh and unwarranted. 13. As seen from the facts of Kailash Nath Guptha, the amount said to have been misappropriated by the employee was Rs. 46,000/-.Nevertheless, the Apex Court took into account the employee's past blemishless service and reckoned that the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate. In Dev Sing, another Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of disproportionality. It has held that an employee's blemishless past conduct for nearly 20 years ought to have been kept in view while the authorities imposed a major punishment. In fact, the Apex Court has affirmed the modification of the punishment. The precedents on an issue like this, I must acknowledge, are a legion, and have a cleavage. 14. It has held that an employee's blemishless past conduct for nearly 20 years ought to have been kept in view while the authorities imposed a major punishment. In fact, the Apex Court has affirmed the modification of the punishment. The precedents on an issue like this, I must acknowledge, are a legion, and have a cleavage. 14. The precedential position apart, I find force in the submissions made by the employee's counsel that this Court's interference in disciplinary matters, especially exercising its jurisdiction of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is extremely limited. The error must be, as oft-affirmed, apparent on the face of the record or must be jurisdictional. The error ought to be so patent as to lead to manifest injustice. Mere error in an order, either factual or legal, may not be a sufficient ground to upset the discretion exercised by a competent statutory Tribunal. Further, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Guptha and Dev Sing accord well with the facts of this case. In these circumstances, I find no compelling reason to interfere with or upset Ext.P20 award rendered by the Labour Court. I, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. No order on costs.