JUDGEMENT This Court has issued Notice for final disposal and accordingly I have heard Shri M.V. Mohokar, learned Counsel for Petitioner and Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. for respondent. Matter is heard finally by issuing Rule, making it returnable forthwith, by consent of parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order of Labour Court, Akola dated 14.01.2000 dismissing ULPA Complaint No. 295/1995 filed by the present petitioner and the subsequent judgment dated 02.01.2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Akola dismissing the ULP Revision No.11/2000 preferred under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act. 3. Shri M.V. Mohokar, learned Counsel for petitioner has contended that after the petitioner entered the service, the terms and conditions of the appointment order became irrelevant and Service Rules were determinative. No show cause notice or any opportunity was given to the petitioner and for not disclosing the pendency of the Criminal prosecution in attestation form, while joining service, he was straightway dismissed. The dismissal is by way of stigma and hence in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further pointed out that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the petitioner was acquitted on merits. He has placed reliance upon the judgment reported at (1986) 1 SCC 675 (Union of India and others .vrs. Arun Kumar Roy), 1997 [1] Bom. L.C 155 [SC] (Regional Manager, Bank of Broada .vrs. The Presiding Officer CGIT and another) and 2000 (2) Bom LC. 1 (SC) (Nar Singh pal .vrs. Union of India and others). He has further pointed out that after the alleged involvement of petitioner in criminal offence and his acquittal, there are no other complaints against him, and his police record is clean and unblemished. 4. Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. has pointed out that here the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and while submitting the application along with the relevant undertaking, he did not disclose pendency of the criminal prosecution, therefore, action has been taken. 5. The facts show that the petitioner was appointed on the post of sampling assistant on 22.12.1994 and he has been terminated in about 7 months i.e. on 20.07.1995. It is an admitted position that he was required to give an undertaking and that undertaking required him to disclose pendency of any criminal proceeding against him. 5. The facts show that the petitioner was appointed on the post of sampling assistant on 22.12.1994 and he has been terminated in about 7 months i.e. on 20.07.1995. It is an admitted position that he was required to give an undertaking and that undertaking required him to disclose pendency of any criminal proceeding against him. In that column, mentioned as column 11[a] he has stated that no such complaint is pending. The police authorities later on reported about the pendency of such criminal prosecution. The petitioner himself has before the Labour Court produced a copy of the judgment in Criminal Case No. 586/1992 and copy of the order of acquittal in Criminal Case No. 712/1994. The Labour Court found that offences were thus registered against him at the time of his appointment and because of suppression thereof, he could procure the service. These facts and dates are not in dispute. 6. Perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India .vrs. Arun Kumar Roy (supra), shows that it does not deal with the aspect of suppression of any material facts while entering the employment. The employee therein was initially appointed on probation for a period of two years and before its expiry, the said period was extended by one more year. Then he was informed that as per the orders of Government of India, the President has terminated his services from afternoon of July 29, 1978. The observations about the primacy of service rules on terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment order therein, are in this background. The judgment therefore, is of no help in the present matter. 7. In Nar Singh Pal .vrs. Union of India (supra), the appellant/employee before the Hon'ble Apex Court has joined the services as casual labour in October, 1982 and worked continuously for more than 10 years. He acquired temporary status and for offence allegedly committed on 20.04.1992 he was prosecuted. Thus an employee already in service was prosecuted for offence allegedly committed after joining such service. The consideration by Hon'ble Apex Court is on the backdrop of these facts. 8. In Regional Manager .vrs. Presiding Officer (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that the High Court had ultimately acquitted the employee and the termination of the employee was after his conviction by the Sessions Court on 20.02.1979. The consideration by Hon'ble Apex Court is on the backdrop of these facts. 8. In Regional Manager .vrs. Presiding Officer (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that the High Court had ultimately acquitted the employee and the termination of the employee was after his conviction by the Sessions Court on 20.02.1979. Explanation was called vide notice dated 26.02.1980 and then termination order was passed on 18.04.1983 i.e. after about 4 years of his conviction. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in the facts found that the original suppression or involvement of respondent in prosecution for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code did not remain so pernicious a misconduct on his part as to visit him with the grave punishment of termination from service. The Hon'ble Apex Court has itself found that view reached was because of the peculiar facts of the case and especially when the Labour Court did not award any back wages and the High Court also did not think it proper to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court however, has directed that the employee should be treated as a fresh employee from the date of his exoneration i.e., from 01.01.1998 and directed him to be placed at the bottom on revised scale of pay for clerks. It is therefore, apparent that view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be said to be laying down any law, so as to govern the controversy in the present matter. 9. Here as already observed, the employee joined on 22.12.1994 and was terminated in less than 7 months. The suppression of prosecution which has material effect in so far as the procurement of employment is concerned, is not in dispute. The Labour Court as also Industrial Court have appreciated all relevant law and also facts. There is no jurisdictional error. Writ Petition is therefore, rejected. No costs.