ORDER Subhash B. Adi, J Award dated 14th February 2007 in ID.No.39/200S is called in question by the Corporation. 2. Respondent was working as a driver. He was served with an article of charges, alleging that the respondent has obtained the employment by producing false Transfer Certificate. In this regard, an enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report, holding that, the charge is proved. The Disciplinary Authority considering the explanation of the workman and also the findings of the Enquiry Officer, found that the charge is proved and passed an order of dismissal. 3. The respondent raised a dispute under Section 1 0(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). The Labour Court held that the enquiry is fair and proper. The workman got himself examined as WW-I and also got marked Exs. WI to W II and Exs.M 18 to M20 were got marked in the cross-examination of the workman. On consideration of the evidence and the material produced in the case, the Labour Court held that the charge is proved. However, considering the delay in completing the enquiry proceedings, by invoking the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, the Labour Court found that the order of dismissal is harsh and modified the punishment by setting aside the order of dismissal, and directing the Corporation to reinstate the respondent without backwages and ordered for withholding of four increments in the place of dismissal. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, once the charge is proved, there was no scope for the Labour Court to modify the order of punishment It is also submitted that the allegation against the respondent is one of fraud inasmuch as the respondent has obtained the employment by producing false certificate and the charge of fraud is proved and if that is so, a person, who acquires employment by dishonest means, cannot legitimate his employment merely because there is a delay in concluding the enquiry. In support of her contention, she relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board and Another Vs. Ram Sajivan and Another (2007) 2 SCC (L & S) 668, and submitted that a long delay that itself is not set aside the punishment, if there exists satisfacto explanation for the delay. In support of her contention, she relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board and Another Vs. Ram Sajivan and Another (2007) 2 SCC (L & S) 668, and submitted that a long delay that itself is not set aside the punishment, if there exists satisfacto explanation for the delay. The gravity of the offence also cannot be ignored while considering the aspect of the delay unless the respondent shows that the delay has really prejudiced and denied him an opportunity to adduce the defence evidence. She also relied on another judgment in the matter of P.D. Agarwal Vs. State Bank of India and Other 2007 (1) SCC (L & S) 43 and submitted that, just because there is a delay in completing the enquiry, that itself is not a ground to set aside the punishment. The delay must prejudice the case of the workman and unless the workman establishes that it has prejudiced and denied him the legitimate opportunity of adducing property evidence, the delay should not be a ground to vitiate the entire proceedings. She also relied on a judgment in the matter of A. V. Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Other (2007) 4 SCC 221 , and submitted that fraud vitiates all judicial acts including the extrinsic collateral act, fraud may be gain to one but loss to another. Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud and further submitted that, in this case, the charge of getting employment based on false certificate is proved. If that is so, the employment acquired by the petitioner is by practising fraud and it vitiates all the proceedings even extrinsic collateral proceedings. The Labour Court having found that the charge is proved, only on the ground of delay ought not to have directed the reinstatement. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there is delay in concluding the enquiry and the delay vitiates the entire proceedings. Insofar as the delay is concerned, the Management has not explained the reason for the delay. In such circumstances, the Labour Court was justified in moulding the relief by invoking the provisions of Section 11- A of the Act. The exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act being a discretionary power, the scope of interference is very limited. Insofar as the delay is concerned, the Management has not explained the reason for the delay. In such circumstances, the Labour Court was justified in moulding the relief by invoking the provisions of Section 11- A of the Act. The exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act being a discretionary power, the scope of interference is very limited. He also submitted that the delay in completing the enquiry is not at all disputed by the Management. In view of the above submission the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether fraud vitiates the entire proceedings” 6. The charge of producing false certificate and getting an employment is not in dispute. The Labour Court has confirmed the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding that the charge is proved. However, the order of punishment is modified only on the ground of delay, by exercising power under Section 11- A of the Act. In case of fraud, the gravity of the offence is also material. A person, who practices fraud for achieving his object, cannot perpetuate much less on the ground of delay. Even one acquires certain rights, they get vitiated once it is proved that the acquisition by means of fraud. In this case the allegation of fraud having been proved, there was no justification for the Labour Court to set aside the punishment. Further, as far as delay is concerned, the Apex Court has considered that, the of the charge is one of the factors required to be seen unless the workman establishes that the delay has vitally prejudiced his case and as placed in a position where he cannot adduce the evidence in defence, only in such circumstances, the delay is required to be taken into consideration. In this case no such prejudice is proved. Workman has lead the evidence and has participated in the proceedings. Just because there is delay, the punishment cannot be altered when the charge of fraud is proved. In my opinion, the Labour Court was not justified in modifying punishment. There is no reason to show misplaced sympathy or there is any need to generous to modify the punishment. Hence the award of Labour Court requires to be set aside. In the circumstances stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Award dated 14th February 2007 in ID.No.39/2005 is set aside.