M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a junior Clerk in the respondent- karnataka State Warehousing corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the corporation') by an order dated 15th february, 1979. That order made it clear that the appointment was temporary and liable to be terminated without previous notice and without giving reasons therefor. The order also made it clear that persons appointed under the order would remain on probation for a period of two years. It is clear by the order dated 21st February, 1979 that her posting was altered and she was posted to State Warehouse, Shimoga instead of head Office at Bangalore. By show-cause notice dated 24th April, 1984 the petitioner was called upon to show-cause as to why she should not be dismissed from the service for cheating and also why police case should not be lodged against her as she had obtained the post of junior Clerk in the Corporation by producing false Certificate indicating that she belongs to Scheduled Caste thus depriving a genuine candidate of that group obtaining job. By reply dated 26. 5. 1984 which is in Kannada she explained the circumstances in which she produced false Certificate along with her application. It can be summarised as follows:"she and her brother wanted job. One Mallaiah at Mysore promised to get them job. About that time, the advertisement for recruitment of junior Clerks in the Karnataka State warehousing Corporation appeared in papers. Mallaiah brought a blank application form to which she signed. Thereafter, she received intimation for interview and subsequently appointed. If that Certificate was attached to the application it was done by said mallaiah without her knowledge and therefore, the could not know about that false certificate. She supports her stand by stating that while filling up service Register in the Corporation, she has written that she belongs to the backward Community in the relevant column. In that circumstance, she pleaded that she was not responsible for the production of false certificate. " ( 2 ) THE respondent-Corporation, by its resolution dated 7. 11. 1983 recommended her removal from service for the reason of producing false certificate and for obtaining appointment as Junior clerk. As a result of the said resolution, the Managing Director of the Corporation discharged the petitioner from service. " ( 2 ) THE respondent-Corporation, by its resolution dated 7. 11. 1983 recommended her removal from service for the reason of producing false certificate and for obtaining appointment as Junior clerk. As a result of the said resolution, the Managing Director of the Corporation discharged the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, she filed an appeal to the Chairman of the corporation as provided in the Regulations of the Corporation governing her service conditions. That appeal also came to be dismissed. Therefore, this writ Petition is presented under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief. Her prayer is for quashing the order of the managing Director of the Corporation as well as the order of the Chairman. ( 3 ) IT is contended for the petitioner that the order is vitiated as no enquiry has been held. It is also contended that the termination falls under Section 25 (r) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the respondent-Corporation carries on an industry and she is a 'workman' within the meaning of that expression as defined under the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 and as no retrenchment compensation is paid, the termination is bad. ( 4 ) I do not think there is substance in the first contention advanced by the petitioner. Petitioner was asked to show cause and her explanation read as a whole establishes her guilt of having produced a false certificate. In fact, there is an admission made by her though responsibility was placed on mallaiah, a person known to her family at Mysore. Therefore, there was no need for the Corporation to establish the fact again by giving any further opportunity to her by examining witnessess or bringing a formal charge by holding an enquiry. Once the fact is established that the job was obtained by false certificate, the petitioner should admit the responsibility for producing the false certificate. The question of transferring the same to somebody else who is in-accessable to the Corporation does not arise and that would not absolve her guilt in the conspiracy. Therefore, I do not find any substance in this argument. Therefore, this contention is rejected. ( 5 ) THE next contention that it amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of that term under the Industrial disputes Act would have had some force if it was a case of termination simplicitor because the petitioner was a temporary employee. Therefore, I do not find any substance in this argument. Therefore, this contention is rejected. ( 5 ) THE next contention that it amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of that term under the Industrial disputes Act would have had some force if it was a case of termination simplicitor because the petitioner was a temporary employee. Undoubtedly, the word used in the impugned order at annexure-G is 'discharged'. That word must be understood with reference to the language used in the show-cause notice which proposed her dismissal for the alleged act of producing the false certificate and obtaining the job. If it is so understood, then the word 'discharge' merely amounts to dismissal from service and therefore, the question of retrenchment or termination simplicitor does not arise In the instant case. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons, the petitioner has not made out a case for interference. Therefore, this petition is rejected without issuing rule. --- *** --- .