Judgment The petitioner was employed by the respondent Electricity Board on the basis of the order passed by the Government, wherein, Government had notified that such of those retrenched staff in the Public Works Department can be accommodated in the service of the Board. Therefore, the petitioners name was sent by the District Collector by a covering letter dated 25.07.1981. On being sponsored, the petitioner was given employment as office Helper. Subsequently, his services were confirmed and he was also given Selection Grade. But, however, the Vigilance Department of the Board, on certain information wrote to the Government regarding the claim made by the petitioner and other workers. They were in turn informed by the Government that they were never employed in the Public Works Department. On the strength of the same, showcause notice was given to the petitioner and after getting the reply from the petitioner, the service of the petitioner came to be terminated on the ground that the employment guarantee was given only to such of those persons who have rendered service in the Public Works Department and who were also retrenched. But, in the case of the petitioner, he has produced a false claim and without working in the Government, secured an employment and such a claim disentitled the petitioner from holding the said post. 2. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court which was taken on file as I.D.No.233 of 1995. The Labour Court after trial held that the claim produced by the petitioner that he worked in the Government and therefore, he is eligible for employment in the respondent Board cannot be accepted and since the petitioner has committed the misconduct provided under paragraph 19(25) of the Standing Orders and even though 13 years of service was put in by him, the Labour Court refused to grant the relief by its Award dated 27.07.1998. It is against this Award the writ petition has been filed. 3. Mr. S. Elamurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the workmen who are similarly placed came before this Court without going through the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Judge of this Court dismissed their writ petition being W.P.No.12209 of 1995 on 22.06.2001 and the matter was taken before the Division Bench in W.A.No.2832 of 2001. 3. Mr. S. Elamurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the workmen who are similarly placed came before this Court without going through the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Judge of this Court dismissed their writ petition being W.P.No.12209 of 1995 on 22.06.2001 and the matter was taken before the Division Bench in W.A.No.2832 of 2001. The Division Bench presided by Justice P. Sathasivam (as he then was) by judgment dated 27.03.2007 allowed the writ appeal and directed reinstatement of the workman, but, however without backwages. In paragraph No.8, the Division Bench rendered the following finding: "8. It is not in dispute that the appellants name along with 56 others was sponsored by the District Collector, Madras, through his proceeding dated 25. 1981 following the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.50 P&AR Department, dated 111. 1976. In the list, appellants name found a place in Sl.No.55. In the order of the District Collector dated 25. 1981 itself it is stated that the candidates should appear before the appropriate appointing authority for obtaining necessary posting orders and the appointing authority shall verify the particulars like the date of birth, community, educational qualification and total length of service of the retrenched candidates and whether they were sponsored for appointment by the District Employment Officer at the first instance. It is the specific case of the appellant that after thorough scrutiny of the said documents including the one, which is now disputed i.e, total length of service of the appellant, who is also a retrenched employee of the Public Works Department on 7. 1981, the appellant was given appointment by order dated 27. 1981 as Helper under Rule 106(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was given promotion as Assessor from 2. 1985. It is the specific case of the appellant before the Enquiry Officer that he was not having the service certificate issued by the Public Works Department and the same was handed over to the District Collector and only after ascertaining the genuineness of the said certificate, the District Collector sponsored the name of the appellant for appointment through his letter dated 25. 1981. Therefore the Enquiry Officer is not right in shifting the burden on the appellant to prove his innocence by producing the experience certificate. " 4. 1981. Therefore the Enquiry Officer is not right in shifting the burden on the appellant to prove his innocence by producing the experience certificate. " 4. The case of the petitioner is identical to the one that has been described in the aforementioned passage. In the case of one P. Thanigaivelan, the Labour Court granted relief of reinstatement with a portion of the backwages. That Award in I.D.No.378 of 1997 was challenged by the respondent Board in W.P.No.1970 of 2007. This Court rejected the case of the Board, but however, modified the Award of the Labour Court in tune with the direction given by the Division Bench. 5. In the light of the above, the Award of the Labour Court necessarily has to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, the writ petitioner is directed to be reinstated, but without backwages. This exercise shall be carried out by the Board within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. No costs.