Imagine a mining pool with PPS payout scheme.
Is it possible for a miner to intentionally not submit a share that solves a block to the pool? Thus, if one has enough hashrate (for example, 50% of pool's hashrate), he can hinder pool's ability to solve blocks by 50% and harm the pool owners because one still getting paid for all submitted shares.
Am I right or I missing something here?

Everybody, thanks a lot for the answers. We are currently looking into suggestions and solutions you've proposed. I'll post an update on this thread later, when things will get clear, so that if anybody encounters such problem in future could use that topic as the starting point.

The situation

Hello. Our company running BTC pool. We've been mining BTC for a while and used segwit address  32Z3eXSPgxcHj2fnQy8d6dg66eVtZfxrBM as pool adress.

But when we finally found a first block (actually - two blocks) for some reason block reward got sent to different address: 1s2iywx94HudryMHsU2g1K9x8DB1cahGc

Here are links for both generation transactions with rewards: https://btc.com/12a1910bbc1fd95410045e86fecf90a601d1c9c93ea338e884e7188cdb54a3d4 and https://btc.com/12a1910bbc1fd95410045e86fecf90a601d1c9c93ea338e884e7188cdb54a3d4

The problem

We cannot get access to funds on 1s2iywx94HudryMHsU2g1K9x8DB1cahGc- we simple can't see that balance on the wallet.

The question
How can we access those funds on 1s2iywx94HudryMHsU2g1K9x8DB1cahGc?

More info

Using Bitcoin Core client command we can inspect both addresses:

Output for 32Z3eXSPgxcHj2fnQy8d6dg66eVtZfxrBM is


Output for 1s2iywx94HudryMHsU2g1K9x8DB1cahGc is


I can see three interesting points here:

1. scriptPubKey for both addresses contains 09763cb05dcea0f98f53b0f08651f92c5d2d2f38 part, which is, afaik, actuall public key. First byte differs, which makes sense, since it's prefix, 00 for legacy and 05 for segwit respectively.

regarding output for 1s2iywx94HudryMHsU2g1K9x8DB1cahGc :

2. pubkey property is missing, which is weird, because usually its included for legacy addresses

3. isMine property equals false, wich means that wallet does not recognize this address relation to wallet PK.

So, can anyone please provide some insight and tell us if (and how?) we can access those funds, or we've lost them for good? Thanks in advance.

P.S.

When I use base58 decode on both 32Z3eXSPgxcHj2fnQy8d6dg66eVtZfxrBM and 1s2iywx94HudryMHsU2g1K9x8DB1cahGc I get

and

respectively.

Again, you can clearly see same bytes, so addresses are definitely related.