ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ petition by a former employees of the respondent-organisation and who had been appointed as trainee driver for a period of two years on a consolidated salary as per order dated 16-4-2000. The respondent-employer while verifying the certificates and credentials presented by the petitioner found that the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner was not a genuine one but a fake certificate and therefore issued notice, held an enquiry and the enquiry resulted in the petitioner being found guilty of the charge of producing fake certificate and removed from service by order dated 10-5-2003. Petitioner had raised a dispute and the matter was before the conciliation officer, but on failure of conciliation efforts, a report was submitted to the State Government and the State Government referred the dispute to Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court registered the matter in Ref. No. 40 of 2007 and found that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and on examining the material placed before it and after hearing the parties, rejected the reference by award dated 19-5-2010. 2. It is aggrieved by this rejection of the reference, the present petition raising several grounds. 3. What is urged by Sri S.B. Mukkannappa, learned Counsel for petitioner is that even assuming that the Labour Court concurred with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the materials also justified that the petitioner had produced a fake certificate and it was in fact virtually admitted by the petitioner also, nevertheless, the Labour Court had a special jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; that it should have been examined the punishment of removal from service; that in respect of certain other employees who had also produced fake or forged certificate and whose misconduct had also been proved in the domestic enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority nevertheless not removed them from service uniformly in respect of other similar cases; that in respect of workmen covered under Exs. W. 1 to W. 5, some of them had been imposed lesser punishment and had not been removed from service; that the Labour Court should have taken note of such developments and should have necessarily exercised its discretion to act under Section 11-A of the Act and to hold that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate and should have directed reinstatement of the employee with a lesser punishment etc. 4. 4. On the other hand, Sri K.S. Bharath Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent-management submits that the Labour Court has shown awareness to this aspect and it found that there is a distinction between those employees and the petitioner; that in the other cases, they are all persons who had put in long years of service, but in the case of petitioner, even during the training period the forgery had been detected and prompt action had been taken and therefore comparison does not arise. 5. The Labour Court also examined the law as laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in connection with kind of misconduct of procuring fake certificate and opined that the grave misconduct justifies removal from service. It is not as though the Labour Court was not aware of the grounds urged and the stand of the petitioner and for the reasons mentioned in the award, they have not been accepted. In the circumstance, I do not find any scope for interference with the award of the Labour Court. Writ petition dismissed.