JUDGMENT Venugopala Gowda, J. With consent of learned Counsel appearing on both sides, appeal is heard for final disposal. 2. An order of termination dated 14.6.1999 issued by appellant against respondent, having been held to be bad and the direction issued by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (‘CGIT’ for short) to reinstate him to his original post, which was modified by the learned single Judge, has been questioned in this writ appeal. BACKGROUND FACTS: 3. Appellant invited applications from the eligible candidates, for making appointments to various posts in its establishment. Respondent filed application dated 19.11.1996 for the notified post of Industrial workman Grade- I (Trainee). In the application, respondent with reference to column 10, furnished the details as follows: “Work experience (as on 01/11/1996) acquired after securing prescribed minimum qualification (to be supported by’ copies of certificates from concerned organisation). Name (o) with full Date Experience Designation address of organisation From To Year Month and salary drawn Basic Training in BEL (Bangalore) 02-11-92 15-05-93 - 6 Trainee (Rs.500/-) Advanced Training in BEL (Bangalore) 26-10-94 2-06-95 - 8 Trainee (Rs.850/-) Hewlett-Packard HH, Electricity City (Bangalore-561229) 31-7-95 15-3-96 - 8 Temp. basis operator Rs.2,250/- Present working Vanpak Palkers (Freight forwards 25-4-96 9 Supervisor No.9, Anjaneya complex) Total No. of Years of Experience: Years 02 Months 07 A declaration was also made in the application, which reads as follows: DECLARATION I hereby declare that all statements made in this application are true, complete and correct to the best of knowledge and belief. I understand, that in the event of any information being found to be false or incorrect or suppressed, my candidature, at any stage, is liable to be cancelled. I fully understand that no notice shall be taken of any request for withdrawal of my application and the fees paid by me are not refundable and not adjustable for my candidature for any other reason. I am willing to serve anywhere in India including offices in rural areas. 4. Based on the information furnished, appellant appointed the respondent as Industrial Workman Grade - I (Trainee) on 8.12.1998. Therefore respondent also submitted a letter dated 16.12.1998 stating that he had worked in M/s. Vanpack for 3 months. A confidential letter was sent by appellant on 17.12.1998 to M/s. Vanpack, asking for opinion about respondent’s character. 4. Based on the information furnished, appellant appointed the respondent as Industrial Workman Grade - I (Trainee) on 8.12.1998. Therefore respondent also submitted a letter dated 16.12.1998 stating that he had worked in M/s. Vanpack for 3 months. A confidential letter was sent by appellant on 17.12.1998 to M/s. Vanpack, asking for opinion about respondent’s character. In response thereto, M/s. Vanpack furnished confidential information in Annexure-II stating that, respondent had never worked with them. A communication dated 26.2.1999 was sent by the appellant to M/s. Vanpack Packers, asking confirmation of the information furnished in Annexure-II. In response thereto, M/s. Vanpack sent a letter to appellant confirming that, respondent never worked with it. On verification, appellant having found that the information given by respondent about he having worked with M/s. Vanpack Packers and Cargo Movers to be false, a charge sheet dated 29.3 .1999 was issued to respondent, alleging the commission of acts of gross misconduct and indiscipline as under: You have furnished false information about your previous employment in your IBPS application and also in your statement dated 16.12.98 at the time of reporting as Trainee on 16.12.98 that you have worked for. M/s. Vanpack Packers and Freight Forwarders, Bangalore-8, contravening Clause 23.1.46, 23.1.67 of Certified Standing Orders of the Company (reproduced below) and also as per Clause 21 and 23 of the offer of appointment issued vide BNM No.7961/02.02.01/02/Ph-II/98-99 dated 8th December 1998 for the position of Industrial Workman Gr- I (Trainee). CSO NO. CLAUSE 23.1.46 Giving false information regarding his name, age, qualification or previous service or any other person data at the time of employment or thereafter and submitting medical certificate/bills which are not of genuine nature. 23.1.67 Any other act of Commission or omission which is subversive of discipline. 5. Respondent was called upon to answer the charges in writing. Respondent submitted his response in terms of his communication dated 10.4.1999, the relevant portion of which, reads as follows: “As I Shanmuga Prabhu. P (Emp. No.20421) working in your organisation, with reference to your charge sheet. After receiving charge sheet, I met my previous company M/s. Vanpak Movers and requested him to give experience letter as he has already given a letter to BRBNML official that I have not worked in his company. As he has not maintained my records he could not give the same to BRBNML Officials. After receiving charge sheet, I met my previous company M/s. Vanpak Movers and requested him to give experience letter as he has already given a letter to BRBNML official that I have not worked in his company. As he has not maintained my records he could not give the same to BRBNML Officials. However after myself meeting him in person he recognised me and is ready to give me an experience certificate, provided the previous letter given by him to BRBNML Officials to be returned to him, otherwise he is prepared to certify orally.” 6. Since, explanation submitted by the respondent was found to be unsatisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the appellant to conduct domestic enquiry and to submit the report. Enquiry Officer, after notice to appellant and respondent, conducted the enquiry, in which, on behalf of appellant, one Mr. P.VS.VS. Prasad Rao, working as Deputy Manager, has deposed and Exs. M1 to M12 were marked. Respondent got examined himself before the enquiry officer. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence produced in the domestic enquiry, enquiry officer submitted his findings dated 27.4.1999 holding the charge sheeted employee guilty of the charges levelled against him and that the acts amount to, acts of misconduct as per the Certified Standing Orders of the Company, under Clauses 23.1.46 and 23.1.67. A Second show cause notice along with the findings of the enquiry officer were furnished to respondent on 29.5.1999; to which, respondent submitted his explanation on 12.6.1999. Considering the reply to the second show cause notice and the record of disciplinary enquiry, General Manager of Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Limited, the disciplinary authority, by an order dated 14.6.1999 held that the reply of respondent to be unacceptable, not satisfactory and thereafter confirmed the punishment of dismissal from services of the company and respondent stood dismissed from service of the company with the close of working hours of 14.6.1999. 7. At the instance of the respondent, Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (d) of sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for shot), made a reference to the CGIT cum Labour Court, Bangalore on 31.10.2001 as follows: “Whether the action of the M/s. Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Ltd., Mysore in dismissing the services of Shri. P. Shanmuga Prabhu w.e.f. 14.6.1999 is justified? If not, what relief the disputant is entitled? If not, what relief the disputant is entitled? The reference was registered in CGIT as CR 80/2001. Respondent filed his claim statement and appellant has filed counter statement to the dispute, before the CGIT, which held an enquiry with regard to the preliminary issue, regarding validity of the domestic enquiry held by the appellant. By an order dated 3.3.2003, CGIT answered the preliminary issue, holding that the domestic enquiry held by the appellant in respect of the respondent, to be fair and proper. There after considering the material on record, CGIT passed the award dated 23.3 .2003. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act, CGIT has allowed the reference in part and has directed appellant/management, to reinstate respondent/workman to his original post with continuity of service. 8. Said award was questioned by appellant in writ petition. Learned single Judge after consideration of record, even though has held that “it cannot be said all is well with the respondent also, when there was misconduct for furnishing false information, the petitioner has taken action for dismissal from service and since the respondent workman has lost nearly 7 years of service, that would be a punishment for him for having furnished false information”, has modified the impugned award and directed the respondent workman, “shall be taken on duty without any back wages and continuity of service”. CONTENTIONS: 9. Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for appellant contended that the tribunals reasoning borders on perversity, undue liberalism and misplaced sympathy, also being an act of excess of jurisdiction. He contended that, learned single Judge has shown, undue liberalism and misplaced sympathy, despite having come to the conclusion that there is misconduct on the part of workman. He contended that the misconduct is not of simple nature, in as much as it is a case of making false declaration and obtaining employment denying opportunity to those candidates who would have stated the truth and would have been at disadvantage. In this regard he relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. Vs. A. Unnikrishnan and Another, AIR 2005 SC 4292 and the case of A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswaralu and Other, 1994 II-LLJ-888. 10. Per contra, Sri. In this regard he relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. Vs. A. Unnikrishnan and Another, AIR 2005 SC 4292 and the case of A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswaralu and Other, 1994 II-LLJ-888. 10. Per contra, Sri. N.G. Phadke, learned Counsel appearing for the workman contended that experience stipulated in the advertisement was only one year, respondent did not furnish any false information regarding his experience; in the application submitted for employment, respondent only furnished the details of the places where he had work experience and there being no misconduct, action of the management is illegal and was rightly been interfered with by the CGIT and was thus upheld by the learned single Judge, with modification. Learned Counsel pointed out that appellant has secured confidential information from M/s. Vanpack Packers from behind the back of the respondent and had relied upon the same. He contended that, letter of M/s. Vanpack Packers could not have been marked in evidence without examining the author thereof. Since the author of the letter, M/s. Vanpack Packers was not examined, said document has not been proved and hence, finding of the enquiry officer that the misconduct has been proved, based on which, disciplinary authority dismissed respondent from service, are arbitrary and illegal, in view of which, the tribunal has interfered with the dismissal order and directed the reinstatement. Learned Counsel made submissions in support of the order passed by learned single Judge and sought its upholding. 11. Considering the rival contentions and on perusal of the record, the points that arise for consideration are: “1. Whether the tribunal has acted legally in directing reinstatement of workman with continuity of service? 2. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in upholding the award of the Labour Court?” 12. Tribunal by its order dated 3.3.2003 has held that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. If enquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any allegation of victirnisation or unfair labour practice, the tribunal has no power to enquire with the punishment imposed. Tribunal by its order dated 3.3.2003 has held that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. If enquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any allegation of victirnisation or unfair labour practice, the tribunal has no power to enquire with the punishment imposed. The tribunal having held that no further investigation was necessary to find out the truth, but still, has held that the misconduct is not proved properly and that order of dismissal is too harsh and the same is not proportionate and by invoking the provisions of Section 11A of the Act, it directed the reinstatement of the workman to original post with continuity of service and no other benefits. The findings of the tribunal, are wholly perverse. It has posed unto itself wrong questions, has put the onus of proof wrongly upon the appellant and its decision is based upon irrelevant factors not germane for the purpose of arriving at a correct finding of fact. It has failed to take into consideration relevant factors. As such a case for judicial review, was made out before the learned single Judge by the management. As already noted the learned single Judge has modified the award. While affirming reinstatement, he has denied back wages and continuity of service to the workman. 13. After hearing both the Counsel following question arises for consideration: Whether the workman is guilty of commission of fraud in obtaining the appointment by acts of misrepresentation about his work experience acquired after securing prescribed minimum qualification and whether the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate and is harsh? 14. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that, in view of the production of letter dated 16.12.1998 (Annexure-J) by workman, it was for him to have examined the witness to prove the contents and in the absence of such proof before the enquiring authority, action taken by disciplinary authority against the workman could not have been found fault with by the Industrial Tribunal. Despite arriving at such a finding and also noticing that, only on the basis of work experience and period shown in the application viz., having worked for 22 months, workman was selected and taken into service, has rightly held that, the decision of the Industrial Tribunal cannot be faulted. The learned Single Judge has further held that the workman has furnished information regarding experience in excess, by exaggeration which he was unable to prove. The learned Single Judge has further held that the workman has furnished information regarding experience in excess, by exaggeration which he was unable to prove. Learned Single Judge has further held that all is not well with the respondent, for the misconduct of furnishing false information, the management has taken action for dismissal from service. Despite holding that, the respondent has failed to establish the fact of having had an experience with M/s Van Pack, learned single Judge has held that, the tribunal was right in not upholding the order of dismissal. Learned single Judge has held that for having furnished false information, the punishment of loss of 7 years of service is sufficient. In effect, learned Single Judge has held that, though there is a misconduct of furnishing false information by the respondent, the tribunal was not justified in holding otherwise in spite of fact that the respondent has failed to prove that he was employed with M/s Van Pack and worked therein, but has shown generosity, by way of misplaced sympathy in upholding decision of the tribunal. In our view, learned Single Judge has rendered contradictory findings. On one hand, learned Single Judge has held that for furnishing false information, loss of 7 years of service is sufficient and on the other hand, has upheld the decision of the tribunal which has held that the workman has not furnished any false information. Thus the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the order. 15. Workman has submitted application form which contains false information and this aspect has been proved by appellant, which is also the finding of learned single Judge., The burden of proof was on the workman, which he has failed to discharge. Management having discharged the initial burden of proof, the tribunal illegally had cast the burden of proof on the management. The burden of proof that he had the work experience as on 1.11.1996, acquired after securing prescribed minimum qualification, was on the workman, since he himself had furnished information in the application and had submitted it. It is not necessary, that the burden of proof should be cast on the management on all occasions, to prove the misconduct. When certain facts are admitted and initial burden of proof is discharged by the management, it is for the workman to prove the contrary. It is not necessary, that the burden of proof should be cast on the management on all occasions, to prove the misconduct. When certain facts are admitted and initial burden of proof is discharged by the management, it is for the workman to prove the contrary. In the instant case, management has proved that workman had submitted the application, the contents of which, are not in dispute to be false. It was brought on the record of the enquiry that, on the enquiry made, where the workman was said to have worked, it was found that, the information furnished in the application, to be incorrect and false. In the said situation, it is for the workman to have examined the proprietor of M/s Vanpack or any other witness. He has failed to avail the opportunity and thus the tribunal has acted illegally in casting the burden of proof on the management. 16. The admitted facts are that, the respondent had applied to the post and in the application, he-has furnished the information. It was with regard to the said information, enquiry was conducted, in which, opportunity of hearing was given to the workman. In terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872, facts admitted need not be proved. It is always settled principles of law that the principles of natural justice should not be stretched too far and the same cannot be said to be in straightjacket formula. The workman has not discharged his burden. Considering the fact that, tribunal had posed wrong question to itself and has rendered wrong findings, which was noticed by the learned single Judge but in our view has erred in not exercising the Jurisdiction vested in him in the matter of judicial review of the order impugned in the writ petition. Workman, from the material on record, is guilty of misrepresentation in furnishing the information in the application submitted seeking appointment. In our view, there was no further enquiry which was required to be held, as held by the tribunal. Even though learned single Judge has held that all is not well with the workman, by misdirecting himself, has rendered the erroneous finding. It is settled position of law that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. In the case of Ram Chandrasingh Vs. Savithridevi and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 319 , it has been held as follows: “15. Even though learned single Judge has held that all is not well with the workman, by misdirecting himself, has rendered the erroneous finding. It is settled position of law that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. In the case of Ram Chandrasingh Vs. Savithridevi and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 319 , it has been held as follows: “15. Commission of fraud on Court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. 16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by word or letter. 17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. In deed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. 18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefore although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. ............................... 25. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata.” 17. The contention of learned Counsel for the workman that there was no mens rea and a mere mistake and unintended statement by the workman in the application form, could not have been the ground for termination of service, is not acceptable to us. There was a requirement to disclose truth and correct fact in the application form, which was not done by the workman. The object of requiring the information and the declaration by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability for appointment and/or to continue him in service. Workman having made false declaration or having given false information, cannot claim the right to continue in service. The object of requiring the information and the declaration by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability for appointment and/or to continue him in service. Workman having made false declaration or having given false information, cannot claim the right to continue in service. The management having regard to the nature of employment and all other aspects, had the discretion to terminate the services of the workman, which is clear from the declaration required to be made in the application form itself. In view of the undertaking and declaration of the workman that in the event of any information furnished by him, being found to be false or incorrect or suppressed, his candidature at any time is liable to be cancelled enabled the management to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the workman. The information furnished and the declaration made having been proved to be false, has established the fact that, the character and the antecedents of the workman to be unsuitable to continue him in service. A person who has made false statement and got into employment, cannot claim continuance. 18. In the case of Kerala Solvents Extractions Ltd. Vs. A. Unnikrishnan and Another, supra, the facts were that, the workman, suppressing his educational qualification, had obtained employment. On finding it out, management terminated services of workman for fraudulent misrepresentation. The Labour Court, holding that the conduct of the workman did not amount to false representation, ordered reinstatement. Writ petition filed by the management was not entertained and an appeal filed was also dismissed. Management challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the orders passed by the Labour Court and confined in the writ and writ appeal wherein, it was held as follows: “7. We are inclined to agree with these submissions. In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this perhaps well-meant but wholly unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability. 8. In this case, we have no hesitation to hold that both the Labour Court and the High Court have erred. We allow the appeal, set aside the orders of the Labour Court and of the High Court in the writ petition, and dismiss the dispute raised by the respondent before the Labour Court.” (Bold is by us for emphasis) The ratio laid down by the-Hon’ble Supreme Court, squarely applies to the instant case. Though the learned single Judge has held that the findings of the tribunal were not legal, still, has failed to exercise power of judicial review and thereby has committed an error calling for interference. Since it has been established by the appellant that the respondent was guilty of an act of misrepresentation for securing employment, the tribunal and the learned single Judge have shown undue sympathy and generosity to the workman in interfering with the punishment imposed by the management, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd., was not justified. In the result, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge and the award passed by the tribunal cannot be sustained, which are accordingly set aside. The reference made to,the triblmal, shall starid answered holding that the management is justified in dismissing the services of the workman and that he is not entitled to any relief. No costs.