Ramachandra Menon, J.

Interference made by the learned single Judge of this Court setting aside the Award passed by the Labour Court [modifying the punishment of dismissal of the 'clerk-cum-cashier' of the respondent Bank for the proven misconduct of manipulating the Registers and Passbook entries of the customers, ordering reinstatement with 50% backwages holding that the said misconduct is not so serious to warrant dismissal] and thus restoring the punishment of dismissal awarded by the management Bank, is the subject matter of this appeal filed by the workman. It is also contended that multiple punishments have been imposed as per a composite order, whereby apart from dismissal, there was denial of Gratuity and Provident fund as well, which hence is sought to be intercepted in this appeal.

2. The appellant, who is an 'ex-service man', was employed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in one of the branches of the respondent Bank at Punnad. While so, he committed certain misconducts involving money transactions, effecting fraudulent entries in the passbook of the customers and registers of the Bank, upon which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. A charge memo was issued on 27.05.1999, to which explanation was submitted on 30.06.1999. Since the explanation was not satisfactory, domestic enquiry was ordered on 30.07.1999, on culmination of which, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 17.01.2000 finding the appellant guilty of all the charges. A copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the appellant/workman on 25.01.2000 seeking for his explanation as to the insinuating circumstances brought on record. After considering the explanation dated 28.02.2000, the Disciplinary Authority arrived at Ext. P1 finding on guilt and the proposed punishment of dismissal was communicated to him on 05.05.2000, offering an opportunity of personal hearing. After the personal hearing conducted on 05.06.2000, Ext. P2 final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 24.06.2000 dismissing the employee from service, holding that the proven charges were very serious warranting dismissal.

3. Pursuant to the dismissal from service, an industrial dispute was raised by the appellant and on reference for adjudication to the first respondent Labour Court, Kozhikkode, the dispute was registered as I.D. No. 5 of 2001. Validity of the domestic enquiry was considered as the preliminary issue. The Management examined the Enquiry Officer and produced the enquiry file. Nobody was examined from the part of the worker and no document was produced. After analysing the facts and circumstances, the Labour Court passed Ext. P3 preliminary order, holding that the worker was not able to point out any error or mistake as to the proceedings in the enquiry and he was not able to point out any instance of violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was held as valid and proper.

4. Ext. P3 order was followed by Ext. P4 Award, whereby the Labour Court found that the appellant worker was guilty of charges 1 and 2 levelled against him in relation to the fraudulent transactions. As observed by the Labour Court in paragraph 6 of Ext. P4 Award, gist of the charges 1 and 2 was that; one Narayanan had availed a car loan from the Bank; that he used to entrust money to workman for repayment of the loan installments, that the workman made certain credit entries in the loan passbook of the borrower, even before the amount came to the hands of the Bank and this was done by making fraudulent adjustment/credit entries in the loan accounts of some other borrowers. The Labour Court observed that, normally, interference would be justified only under rare grounds, where the Court finds that the punishment was unduly harsh or shockingly disproportionate. After the above finding/observation, the Labour Court, in the very next breath held (in the next paragraph) that the proven misconduct was 'not of such a seriou