R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THE Bangalore metropolitan transport corporation (for short "the corporation") is before this court challenging the award in i. d. No. 403 of 1994, dated 26-3-1999, Annexure-C on the following facts. ( 2 ) THE respondent is a driver. He was charge-sheeted for having obtained employment by producing fake document. An enquiry was conducted. Report was obtained and thereafter, a dismissal order was issued to him. The said dismissal order was challenged before the labour court, Bangalore in i. d. No. 403 of 1994. Matter was contested. After contest the labour court has passed the following award:"the claim statement of the i party under Section 10 (4-a) of the i. d. act of 1988 is allowed. The order of dismissal passed by the ii party in No. Kst:bts:est:c4:dll:3219:94-95, dated 8-8-1994 is ordered to be set aside. The i party is ordered to be reinstated back into service with 50% of the back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits". ( 3 ) THIS award is challenged by the management in the case on hand. ( 4 ) HEARD the counsel on either side. Perused the impugned award. ( 5 ) THE material facts reveal that the respondent-workman was charge-sheeted for having submitted a false transfer certificate. It was alleged that while applying for the post of a driver, he had submitted a false transfer certificate. The said charge was proved in the enquiry. thereafter, the dismissal order was issued to the respondent. The labour court has framed the following three issues: (A) whether the ii party proves that the domestic enquiry held by the enquiry officer against i party was fair and legal? (B) whether the ii party is justified in passing the order of dismissal of the i party from the services as per order No. Kst:bts:est:c4:dll:3219:94-95, dated 8-8-1994? (C) to what reliefs, if any, is the i party entitled?the first issue was answered in favour of the management in the light of a memo filed conceding the fairness of the enquiry. Thereafter, the labour court considered the material on record in the case on hand. The material evidence discloses that the administrative officer of the corporation sought verification in terms of ex. M. 1 as per ex. M. 3 along with a reply letter ex. M. 2 from the headmaster, government higher secondary school, vishwanathapura, devenahalli taluk. Thereafter, the labour court considered the material on record in the case on hand. The material evidence discloses that the administrative officer of the corporation sought verification in terms of ex. M. 1 as per ex. M. 3 along with a reply letter ex. M. 2 from the headmaster, government higher secondary school, vishwanathapura, devenahalli taluk. He contacted the head master, government primary school, vishwanathapura. In terms of ex. M. 2, the workman had not studied in the school. T. c. No. 21/72-73 shows the name of krishnappa, s/o. Sannappa. The labour court after noticing all these facts comes to a conclusion that the charges are not proved in the case on hand. The reasoning of the labour court is that the head master was not examined. The labour court also holds that ex. M. 2 has been written by another head master. With these two reasonings, the labour court rejects the entire evidence available on record. ( 6 ) I have carefully perused the oral evidence and also the documentary evidence placed before the enquiry officer and the report submitted by the enquiry officer. In the report, the enquiry officer notices the evidence and also the documents placed before it. The transfer certificate bearing No. 21/72-73 has been noticed by the enquiry officer and thereafter, the enquiry officer finds him guilty, in the light of the evidence and the documents. I have carefully perused the findings of the enquiry officer, exhibits and the transfer certificate. It is seen from the said document that there is an overwriting in column 4 (the name of the pupil ). In column 4, d. Narayanaswamy (respondent's name is mentioned ). When the same was confronted to the authorities, the public school has submitted a letter and in the said letter, they have stated that narayanaswamy has not studied in the school and t. c. No. 21/7273 is recorded in the name of krishnappa, s/o. Sannappa. The said document has been marked in the enquiry. No objection seems to have been taken to either the endorsement or the letter of the school. In these circumstances, in my view, it cannot be said that the enquiry officer has committed any error, whatsoever, in finding guilty of the respondent relying on ex. M. 2. The said document has been marked in the enquiry. No objection seems to have been taken to either the endorsement or the letter of the school. In these circumstances, in my view, it cannot be said that the enquiry officer has committed any error, whatsoever, in finding guilty of the respondent relying on ex. M. 2. The mere non-examination by the head master by itself does not destroy the evidentiary value of an endorsement issued particularly by a public school. In these circumstances, the reasoning of the labour court that the charges are not proved on the ground of non-examination of the head master is legally unsustainable in law. Moreover, there is no allegation of enmity or attributing any motive to the author of ex. M. 2. In these circumstances, the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be a perverse finding. The labour court, in my view has committed a serious error in dislodging this factual finding, for the purpose of granting relief of reinstatement to the workman. The findings of the labour court, in my view, require my interference. In industrial disciplinary matters, it is a well-settled principle that if there is some evidence available on record, the findings of a fact finding authority cannot be set aside by a court. A case of no evidence stands on an entirely different footing than a case of some evidence. ( 7 ) IN this regard, it is relevant to quote a famous judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and another v Rattan singh, in the said case, the Supreme Court has ruled as under in paras 4 and 5:"it is well-settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the i. e. act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor textbooks, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the i. e. act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor textbooks, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The 'residum' Rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from american jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of chamanlal, inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground. Reliance was placed, as earlier stated, on the non-compliance with the departmental instruction that statements of passengers should be recorded by inspectors. These are instructions of prudence, not rules that bind or vitiate in the violation. In this case, the inspector tried to get the statements but the passengers declined, the psychology of the latter in such circumstances being understandable, although may not be approved. We cannot hold that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid. In this case, the inspector tried to get the statements but the passengers declined, the psychology of the latter in such circumstances being understandable, although may not be approved. We cannot hold that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the re-evaluation of the evidence on the strength of co-conductor's testimony is a matter not for the court but for the administrative tribunal. In conclusion, we do not think the courts below were right in overturning the finding of the domestic tribunal". the Supreme Court in the said judgment has ruled that the simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and wordly wisdom will accept. ( 8 ) IN the case on hand, the evidence of the management read with ex. M. 2 is some evidence which has been accepted by the enquiry authority. That finding cannot be set aside by the labour court, as has been done in the case on hand. The findings of the labour court even in spite of there being some evidence, is contrary to the legal principles enunciated in the case of rattan singh, supra. ( 9 ) THE court of law has disapproved obtaining employment by production of a fake certificate. The division bench of this court in the case of hindustan aeronautics limited v K. Shanmugam and another has, upheld the case of dismissal on the ground of false declaration. ( 10 ) RECENTLY, a division bench of this court in the case of Management of V. I. S. L. , bhadravathi, shimoga district v B. Veeranna gowda patil and another, has ruled in para 6 reading as under:"an employee who is found to be guilty of securing appointment by playing fraud on the employer is not entitled to any equitable consideration or relief. This aspect of the matter has been clarified more than once by the apex court. In the case of union of India v m. Bhaskaran, it has been held that: when once fraud on the employer is detected, appointment orders themselves are tainted and vitiated by fraud and acts of cheating on the part of the employees, appointment orders are liable to be recalled and voidable at the option of the employer concerned. In the case of union of India v m. Bhaskaran, it has been held that: when once fraud on the employer is detected, appointment orders themselves are tainted and vitiated by fraud and acts of cheating on the part of the employees, appointment orders are liable to be recalled and voidable at the option of the employer concerned. Once fraud of the employees in getting such employment was detected, the employees were proceeded against in a departmental enquiry and called upon to have their say and thereafter have been removed from service. Orders of removal would amount to recalling of fraudulently obtained and erroneous appointment orders, which were awarded by the employer after following due process of law and complying with the principles of natural justice. Fraudulently obtained appointment orders would be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer and could be recalled by the employer and in such cases, merely because the employees have continued in service for a number of years on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment orders, cannot create equity in their favour or any estoppel against the employer". ( 11 ) IN the light of these two judgments, it cannot be said that the management has committed any error, whatsoever, in ordering dismissal for having obtained an employment by producing a bogus certificate, ( 12 ) THE workman's counsel, however, relies on various unreported judgments in support of his case. Writ petition No. 24775 of 1997, dated 16-6-1998 is a petition filed by the management. That was not a case dealing with a case of bogus certificate. That was a case in which no evidence was led, even after the enquiry was set aside. That judgment is factually distinguishable. The same is not applicable to the facts of this case. The judgment in W. P. No. 18573 of 1997, dated 24-9-1998 is again a case of no evidence. In the said case, the court notices that the witness of the management has admitted that he did not verify as to who has issued the transfer certificate. It was in those circumstances, the court has dismissed the petition filed by the management. Two other judgments in W. P. nos. 18866 and 22605 of 2000 are equally not applicable to the facts of this case. It was in those circumstances, the court has dismissed the petition filed by the management. Two other judgments in W. P. nos. 18866 and 22605 of 2000 are equally not applicable to the facts of this case. In W. P. No. 18866 of 2000, the court notices the non-examination of the head master with regard to the workman having not running any institution. The facts of this case are different. In this case what is pleaded by the management is of a bogus transfer certificate produced by the workman, which has been supported by the evidence of m. w. 1 read with ex. M. 2. Similarly, W. P. No. 22605 of 2000 also stands on a different footing. There is no discussion at all with regard to this aspect of the matter. In these circumstances, none of the judgments cited by the workman are helpful to him. ( 13 ) ON the other hand, the judgments relied on by the management applies in all forces to the facts of this case. This court has observed that obtaining employment by submitting a bogus document cannot be encouraged. If a workman, at the very threshold is permitted to commit such acts, then discipline is at peril. No encouragement can be shown to those who obtain employment by a false means. Any such encouragement is not in the interest of anybody including the organisation. In the light of my discussions, I have no hesitation in holding that the award suffers from errors on the face of the record, requiring my interference. ( 14 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed. The award is set aside. The order of dismissal is confirmed. Parties to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .