ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy J.—W.P. No. 28445/2011 is filed by the workman while WP No. 41044/2010 by the Road Transport Corporation-employer calling in question the award dated December 16, 2009 in I.D. No. 97/2005 of the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. The challenge to the award by the workman is in so far as the finding of the Labour Court that the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry and the disciplinary authority are not perverse and the imposition of punishment of withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect and disentitling back wages, consequential benefits and directing continuity of service only for terminal benefits and not for increments and promotions, by modifying the order terminating. The Road Transport Corporation has challenged the very same award in so far as exercise of discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short Act, to modify the order of termination to one of reinstatement with certain benefits. The workman when appointed as a Driver in the Public Road Transport Corporation produced Transfer Certificate No. 40/85-86 with Admission No. 7/67-68, certifying that he had studied upto V Std. in the Government Kannada Boys Primary School, Magadi, which on verification revealed was fabricated. The workman having made a false representation, disciplinary proceeding was initiated, by issuing an Article of charge, followed by appointing an Inquiring Authority, who extended reasonable opportunity of hearing to the workman and submitted a report dated November 21, 2003, holding the charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority by order dated September 8, 2005 dismissed the workman from service, which led to filing a petition under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'I.D. Act' to set aside the order of dismissal, registered as I.D. No. 97/2005. In the premise of pleadings of parties the Labour Court framed issues, one of which was over the validity of the domestic enquiry. Parties entered trial, whence one witness was examined for Road Transport Corporation, as MW-1 and 26 documents marked as Exhibit M-1 to M-26, while the workman was examined as WW-1 and no documents were marked. The Labour Court passed an order dated October 9, 2009 answering the issue in the affirmative holding the domestic enquiry fair and proper. There afterwards, the workman was further examined on victimization. The Labour Court passed an order dated October 9, 2009 answering the issue in the affirmative holding the domestic enquiry fair and proper. There afterwards, the workman was further examined on victimization. The Labour Court having regard to the material on record and evidence both oral and documentary marshalled in the domestic enquiry observed that the oral testimony of one Mohd. Jaffer, the Headmaster of the Government Kannada Boys Primary School, Magadi coupled with the acquittance rolls Exhibit M-14 not disclosing the name of G. Giriyappa as Headmaster during June, 1985, was credible evidence. The defence of the workman that the Headmaster by name G. Giriyappa had issued the Transfer Certificate No. 40/85-86 during June 1985 was not accepted in view of Exhibit M-14 the Acquittance register not disclosing the name of the said G. Giriyappa as the Headmaster during June, 1985. Therefore, the workman having failed to establish the genuineness of the Transfer Certificate No. 40/85-86 and the Admission No. 7/67-68, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the misconduct of fabrication of the Transfer Certificate was proved. The Labour Court on an assumption that no minimum qualifications was required for the post of Driver and that the transfer certificate was only to ascertain the date of birth of the workman coupled with the fact that in similar instances, the Road Transport Corporation took a lenient view, to hold that the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct proved, invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act, to modify the punishment of dismissal to reinstatement by withholding four increments with cumulative effect as a measure of punishment, by the award impugned. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the award impugned, the following two questions arise for decisions making: " I. Whether the Labour Court was not justified in invoking Section 11A of the Act entitling the workman to equitable consideration and relief as contended by the Employer Corporation? II. Whether in the facts and circumstances the Labour Court was justified in modifying the order of dismissal to one of withholding four increments with cumulative effect as a measure of punishment and denying back wages and consequential benefits while directing continuity of service only for terminal benefits and not for promotion and increments, as contended by the workman"? 3. II. Whether in the facts and circumstances the Labour Court was justified in modifying the order of dismissal to one of withholding four increments with cumulative effect as a measure of punishment and denying back wages and consequential benefits while directing continuity of service only for terminal benefits and not for promotion and increments, as contended by the workman"? 3. The answer to this question need not detain the Court for allowing, in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. M. Bhaskaran and Others AIR 1996 SC 686 : LNIND 1995 SC 1012: 1996-I-LLJ-781, in the circumstances, is apposite (Headnote of LLJ): "When once fraud on the employer is detected, the appointment orders themselves are tainted and vitiated by fraud and acts of cheating on the part of the employees. The appointment orders are liable to be recalled and voidable at the option of the employer concerned. Once the fraud of the employees in getting such employment was detected, the employees were proceeded against in departmental enquiries and called upon to have their say and thereafter have been removed from service. Orders of removal would amount to recalling of fraudulently obtained erroneous appointment orders which were avoided by the employer after following the due process of law and complying with the principles of natural justice. Fraudulently obtained appointment orders could 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 number of-years on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment orders cannot create any equity in their favour or any estoppel in favour of the employee". 4. To the similar effect are the observations of the Apex Court, in the following opinions: Kerala Solvent Extractions v. A. Unnikrishnan and Another 1994-II-LLJ-888 (SC) District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 2 LLJ 153 SC ; Union of India v. A. Nagamalleshwari Rao AIR 1998 SC 111 : (1998) 1 SCC 700 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh and Others, AIR 2000 SC 1165 5. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 2 LLJ 153 SC ; Union of India v. A. Nagamalleshwari Rao AIR 1998 SC 111 : (1998) 1 SCC 700 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh and Others, AIR 2000 SC 1165 5. A Division Bench of this Court in the Management of VISL v. B. Veeranna Gowda Patil 2001-I-LLJ-394 (Kant), following the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, declined to interfere in the matter of termination of service after a disciplinary proceeding, extending reasonable opportunity of hearing and having found the workman to have obtained an appointment by fraudulent means by producing forged document/academic documents, disentitling the workman to equitable consideration or relief. - 6. The contention of Smt. Manjula N. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the workman that the material on record disclosed missing pages from SI. No. 1 to 67 of the Transfer Certificate register for the year 1985-1986 of the Government Kannada Boys Primary School, Magadi was sufficient to establish the fact that the transfer certificate No. 40/85-86 submitted by the workman was genuine, is critically opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, Smt. H.R. Renuka contending that seal and signature of one G. Giriyappa on the transfer certificate, claiming to be the Headmaster of the School during June, 1985, was shown to be factually incorrect, in the light of G. Giriyappa's names as headmaster was not found in the acquittance roll Exhibit M-14. 7. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Road Transport Corporation, that Exhibit M-14 the acquittance roll of persons holding post of graduate Headmasters in the Government Kannada Boys School, Magadi during June, 1985 when produced in the domestic enquiry did not contain the name of G. Giriyappa as the Headmaster, but was shown to be vacant. If that is so, the Transfer Certificate No. 40/85-86 with Admission No. 7/67-68 issued to the petitioner, signed by G. Giriyappa as Headmaster was not admissible in evidence. The workman, thus failed to establish the genuineness of the transfer certificate produced by him in proof of having studied in Government Kannada Boys Primary School upto 5th Standard. 8. In the factual matrix, the Labour Court's finding that Exhibit M-19 Transfer Certificate was fabricated, cannot be found fault with. The workman, thus failed to establish the genuineness of the transfer certificate produced by him in proof of having studied in Government Kannada Boys Primary School upto 5th Standard. 8. In the factual matrix, the Labour Court's finding that Exhibit M-19 Transfer Certificate was fabricated, cannot be found fault with. So also the finding of the Labour Court that the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority had not returned perverse findings cannot be found fault with. The workman having secured an appointment by fraudulent means by producing forged/ academic documents disentitled the workman to equitable consideration or relief. 9. In the factual matrix, the Labour Court's finding that there was no educational qualification fixed for appointment to the post of Driver, is factually incorrect, since the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1992 under the heading "traffic department" prescribes educational qualification of 4th standard for appointment to the post of Driver Class-Ill. In other words, the Labour Court did surmise, conjecture and guessed while drawing the inference in the absence of proved facts and therefore, there is no legitimacy to the inference and the conclusion. So also the Labour Court's conclusion that in identical circumstances, similarly placed workmen were permitted to continue in service by imposing minor punishment would enure to the benefit of the workman, in my considered opinion, is illegal and unsustainable. Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides for equality which is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. Benefits extended to some persons in an illegal or irregular manner, cannot be claimed by others on the plea of equality. Wrong order or judgment passed in favour of one person would not entitle another to claim benefits. This is the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Anr., AIR 2000 SC 2306 ; and in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Alok Sharma and Others, JT (2009) 6 SC 463 . 10. The Labour Courts observation that the workman had served the Corporation for 12. years and hence calls for equitable consideration, is wholly misplaced and contrary to the observations of the Apex Court in Bank of India and Another Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3395 , following its earlier observations in R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. 10. The Labour Courts observation that the workman had served the Corporation for 12. years and hence calls for equitable consideration, is wholly misplaced and contrary to the observations of the Apex Court in Bank of India and Another Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3395 , following its earlier observations in R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Others, AIR 2004 SC 1469 which reads thus 2005-III-LLJ-1122 at p. 1127: "9. A similar plea about long years of service was considered by this Court in R, Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others (supra) to be inconsequential. In para 19 it was observed: 19. It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service, the order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the pensionary benefits of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission as well. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. The appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eye of the law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flows from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the Court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the Court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practicing fraud". 11. In Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Naravade etc., AIR 2005 SC 1993 , the Apex Court observed thus at p. 1134 of LLJ: " 20. It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management where the workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to hereinabove and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment". This observation was followed by the Apex Court in L and T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N. Udayakumar, (2008) 1 LLJ 849 SC . The exercise of discretion by the Labour Court under Section 11A of the Act was unavailable in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, since the appointment was based on fraud played on the employer and therefore, to hold that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct held, proved so as to disturb the conscience of the Court, is illegal. Re Point I is answered in the affirmative. Re Point I is answered in the affirmative. Re-Point II.: In the view that I have taken on Point 1 the answer to Point II, is that, it is unnecessary and inconsequential. In the result, W.P. No. 28445/2011 filed by the workman is rejected while W.P. No. 41044/2010 filed by the Road Transport Corporation is allowed. Award dated December 16, 2009 of the III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D. No. 97/2005 is quashed and the said petition is rejected.