ORDER : The relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is to call for the records relating to I.D.No.99 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent dated 26.11.2012 filed and marked as Ex-'A' and quash the same, in so far as it interfered with the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits and substituted it with reinstatement and 30% backwages. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The second respondent was employed as a Messenger in the petitioner Bank. On 11.12.2009, when the second respondent was employed as Sub Staff in the Avudaiyarkoil Branch of the petitioner Bank in Pudukottai District, he was sent to the Pudukottai District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., (for Brevity, 'PDCC Bank Ltd.') to collect the value of two cheques viz., (i) Cheque No.132522 dated 10.12.2009 for Rs.2,660/- and (ii) Cheque No.132509 dated 08.12.2009 for Rs.1,765/-, totally amounting to Rs.4,425/-. The PDCC Bank Ltd., also gave him the amounts mentioned in the instruments viz., Rs.2,660/- and Rs.1,765/- totaling Rs.4,425/-. In the local cheque clearing register, the second respondent has wrongly entered the amount as Rs.2,260/- instead of Rs.2,660/-. The second respondent misappropriated Rs.400/- and remitted only Rs.4,025/- in the Branch. When the Manager 2nd line of the Branch approached the PDCC Bank Ltd. in regard to the short fall of Rs.400/-, they informed him that they had paid a sum of Rs.4,425/- to the second respondent. So, the Manager 2nd line of the Branch insisted the second respondent to pay the difference amount of Rs.400/-, for which, the second respondent has quarrelled with the Manager 2nd line of the Branch, in front of the customers. Later, the second respondent has remitted the difference amount of Rs.400/- to the Branch. 2.1. While so, the Disciplinary Authority has suspended the second respondent from service on 15.12.2009 and issued him a Charge Sheet on 21.04.2010, levelling two charges against him, which are as follows: (i) On 11.12.2009, he had dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated bank's money to the tune of Rs.400/-. (ii) When the Manager 2nd line of the Branch detected the amount misappropriated by him and advised him to remit the same, he had quarrelled with the Manager 2nd line, in front of the customers instead of remitting the amount. 2.2. In the enquiry, the second respondent has accepted the charges which were framed against him. (ii) When the Manager 2nd line of the Branch detected the amount misappropriated by him and advised him to remit the same, he had quarrelled with the Manager 2nd line, in front of the customers instead of remitting the amount. 2.2. In the enquiry, the second respondent has accepted the charges which were framed against him. On the side of the Bank, two witnesses were examined viz., Senior Manager, Regional Office & Manager 2nd line of the Branch and 8 documents were marked, whereas, on the side of the second respondent, no witness was examined. The Disciplinary Authority found that the second respondent is guilty of the charges framed against him. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.10.2010 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits on the petitioner, as against which, the second respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority/General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai, but, the same came to be dismissed on 08.02.2011. 2.3. Aggrieved over the order of compulsory retirement issued by the Disciplinary Authority, the second respondent has raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.99 of 2011 before the first respondent Labour Court. The first respondent Labour Court vide award dated 26.11.2012, has modified the punishment imposed on the second respondent, by observing that the second respondent is ordered to be reinstated into service forthwith with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits but with backwages limited to 30%. Hence, challenging the order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the first respondent Court in I.D.No.99 of 2011, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, for the aforesaid relief. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent himself in his claim statement did not state that he had unblemished record of past service and there was no necessity to the petitioner Bank to show that his past service records before the first respondent Court. The fact remains is even before the second respondent was suspended from service on 15.12.2009, twice, he was charge sheeted and punished by the petitioner Bank, for his misconduct. But in the impugned order, the first respondent Labour Court has held that it is nobody's case that he has not had any unblemished record of past service. 3.1. The fact remains is even before the second respondent was suspended from service on 15.12.2009, twice, he was charge sheeted and punished by the petitioner Bank, for his misconduct. But in the impugned order, the first respondent Labour Court has held that it is nobody's case that he has not had any unblemished record of past service. 3.1. He further submitted that the second respondent himself admitted the charges which were framed against him and in paragraph No.9 of award dated 26.11.2012, the first respondent Court has also held that the charges framed against the second respondent is proved. 3.2. He drew the attention of this Court to the cases of Municipal Committee Bahadurgarh vs. Krishnan Bheari and Ors. reported in 1996 (2) SCC 714 and Janata Bazaar South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., and Ors vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha & Ors. reported in 2000 (II) LLJ 1395 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the charge of misappropriation is proved, the employee cannot be retained in service and any sympathy shown is uncalled for. So, the first respondent Court ought not to have taken a lenient view in this issue and modified the punishment imposed on the second respondent. The award passed by the first respondent Court is perverse and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that despite the second respondent is having 20 years of unblemished service records, he was charge sheeted and punished by the petitioner Bank. The punishment imposed on the second respondent is too harsh. Another delinquent who misappropriated a sum of Rs.5,000/- was given a minor punishment of reduction in Basic Pay by two stages. He further submitted that though the Appellate Authority/General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai, has granted an opportunity of personal hearing to the second respondent, without considering the points raised in the appeal petition, has dismissed the appeal of the second respondent. 4.1. Without giving up, the second respondent has raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.99 of 2011 before the first respondent Court and the same was disposed of vide award dated 26.11.2012. 4.1. Without giving up, the second respondent has raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.99 of 2011 before the first respondent Court and the same was disposed of vide award dated 26.11.2012. The first respondent Court has rightly set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the second respondent and ordered to reinstate the second respondent into service forthwith with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits but with backwages limited to 30%. There is no perversity in the award passed by the first respondent Court. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that this writ petition may be dismissed. 4.2. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that while this writ petition is pending, the second respondent has passed away on 21.01.2016 and his legal representatives were impleaded as respondents 3 to 7 in this writ petition vide order dated 04.09.2018 passed by this Court in W.M.P.No.6835 of 2018. 5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. It can be seen from the records that the charge framed against the second respondent is that on 11.12.2009, he has collected a sum of Rs.4,425/- from PDCC Bank Ltd., Avudaiyarkoil as per two instruments, viz., (i) Cheque No.132522 dated 10.12.2009 for Rs.2,660/- and (ii) Cheque No.132509 dated 08.12.2009 for Rs.1,765/-, totally amounting to Rs.4,425/, whereas, he remitted only a sum of Rs.4,025/- into the Sundry Creditors Account of the Branch and misappropriated a sum of Rs.400/-. When the Manager 2nd line of the Branch had found out the fraudulent act of the second respondent, he advised the second respondent to remit the difference amount of Rs.400/-. But the second respondent has disobeyed the Manager 2nd line of the Branch and quarreled with him, in front of the customers. Only after much persuasion, the second respondent has remitted the difference amount of Rs.400/- into the Sundry Creditors Account. 7. As far as this case is concerned, a sum of Rs.400/- misappropriated by the second respondent is a temporary misappropriation, for which, he was charge sheeted. According to the petitioner Bank, the act of omission and commission committed by the second respondent was considered as a gross misconduct under Clauses 5(d), 5(e) and 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. The enquiry was conducted and the charges which were framed against the second respondent were also proved. According to the petitioner Bank, the act of omission and commission committed by the second respondent was considered as a gross misconduct under Clauses 5(d), 5(e) and 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. The enquiry was conducted and the charges which were framed against the second respondent were also proved. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits, on the second respondent and the same was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority/General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai. So, the second respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.99 of 2011 before the first respondent Court. The first respondent Court has held that the second respondent is guilty of the misconduct and interfered with the punishment imposed on the second respondent under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'ID Act'), by ordering the second respondent to be reinstated into service forthwith with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits with 30% backwages. The first respondent Court has treated the denial of 70% of backwages as a punishment for the misconduct committed by the second respondent. 8. Though the charges framed against the second respondent were proved, the first respondent Court has ordered the second respondent to be reinstated with 30% backwages. No doubt, according to Section 11A of the ID Act, the first respondent Court can very well interfere with the punishment imposed on the second respondent by the Disciplinary Authority. 9. In the case on hand, during the pendency of this writ petition, the second respondent has passed away on 21.01.2016. So, the question of reinstatement does not arise. The charge levelled against the second respondent with regard to misappropriation of money, is only a temporary misappropriation of meager amount of Rs.400/-, but, the punishment imposed on the second respondent for the said charge, is too harsh and disappropriate to the delinquency committed by him. Therefore, first respondent Court has rightly awarded 30% backwages to the second respondent and treated the denial of remaining 70% of backwages as punishment for the misconduct committed by the second respondent. 10. I do not find any infirmity in the award passed by the first respondent Court since the same is tenable in law. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the first respondent Court in I.D.No.99 of 2011 dated 26.11.2012. 12. 10. I do not find any infirmity in the award passed by the first respondent Court since the same is tenable in law. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the first respondent Court in I.D.No.99 of 2011 dated 26.11.2012. 12. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed and the award passed by the first respondent Court in I.D.No.99 of 2011 dated 26.11.2012 is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.