JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the award-dated 18.09.1996 passed by the respondent no.1. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondent no.2 to reinstate the petitioner and pay him back wages alongwith other benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated, are that petitioner was appointed in the respondent no.2 establishment, namely, M/s Quality Restaurant on 01.02.1979, he was employed in another unit, namely, Quality Ice Cream. In February 1989, the petitioner was again employed in the Quality Restaurant. On 12.02.1991 and 01.06.1991, two show cause notices were issued to the petitioner, and thereafter, a domestic enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and on 30.11.1991, his services were terminated. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised and the State Government referred the matter to the respondent no.1 under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent no.1 proceeded against the petitioner and passed the award-dated 18.09.1996 in Adjudication Case no.160/92. Against the award-dated 18.09.1996 passed by the respondent no.1, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the employer has illegally terminated the services of the petitioner and the respondent no.1, without applying his mind, passed the award against the petitioner. He submitted that the respondent no.1, framed issues and without applying the correct facts and evidence filed by the petitioner, proceeded against the petitioner and passed award-dated 18.09.1996 and the same is illegal and non-est. He submitted that the award-dated 18.09.1996 is based on surmises and conjectures and the same has no sanctity in the eyes of law. He submitted that the petitioner filed certain documents in support of his case and adduced some grounds also, but the respondent no.1 did not consider the same and the findings recorded by him are totally perverse and irrational. He argued that the learned Presiding Officer erred in law by not awarding compensation to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is a poor man, having no means of his subsistence and his whole family is on the verge of starvation. He contended that the impugned award passed by the respondent no.1 is illegal, void and is liable to be quashed. He also submitted that the legal question invlolved in the present case, if not decided, may be kept open. 5. He contended that the impugned award passed by the respondent no.1 is illegal, void and is liable to be quashed. He also submitted that the legal question invlolved in the present case, if not decided, may be kept open. 5. Respondent no.2 filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner applied for the post of Receptionist on 21.03.1989 and as per the rules, the petitioner filled up the application form on 01.04.1989, wherein under column 6, which pertained to the educational qualifications of the applicant, the petitioner stated falsely that he was High School pass from the Central Board of Higher Education, High School, New Delhi in IInd division in the year 1972. On the basis of the information given by the petitioner in the application form, the respondent no.2 appointed the petitioner as a Sales Assistant (Counter Clerk)/ Receptionist in the establishment. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to submit his original certificate of High School for confirming the records of the establishment vide letter dated 01/05-2-91. When the petitioner failed to comply with the request of the respondent no.2, a reminder was sent to him on 12.02.1991. It is stated that the petitioner then submitted his certificate issued by the Central Board of Higher Education, High School Examination 1972 bearing roll no.3642. The respondent no.2, in order to authenticate the genuineness of the certificate submitted by the petitioner, wrote a letter dated 08.05.1991 to the Secretary, Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi, seeking clarification with regard to the authenticity of the certificate. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 received a letter-dated 15.05.1991 from the Central Board of Higher Education that the certificate no.3642 submitted by the petitioner did not belong to the institution and was not genuine. After receiving the letter from the Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi, the respondent no.2 issued a charge sheet/show cause notice to the petitioner on 01.06.1991. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not give satisfactory reply to the charges leveled against him and therefore, an enquiry into the charges was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report, confirming the charges leveled against the petitioner to be true and duly proved. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not give satisfactory reply to the charges leveled against him and therefore, an enquiry into the charges was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report, confirming the charges leveled against the petitioner to be true and duly proved. On 20.11.1991, the respondent no.2 issued another show cause notice to the petitioner, enquiring as to why he should not be dismissed from service on the basis of misconduct being duly proved. The petitioner then submitted his explanation, which was found to be unsatisfactory and in view of the gravity of charges and the past bad record of the petitioner, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Thereafter, the petitioner raised the dispute before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun vide Adjudication Case no.160 of 1992. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun, vide his award dated 18.09.1996, held the enquiry to be fair and proper and further held the dismissal of the workman by the respondent valid. However, the order of dismissal was changed to ‘order of discharge’ from service. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Kwality Ice Cream factory was not a branch or a unit of Kwality Restaurant, and Kwality Ice Cream factory was duly registered as a separate establishment under the ownership of different partners and the same was closed on 01.04.1989. 6. Shri R.K. Raizada, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that the award of the Labour Court, Dehradun is absolutely legal and justified. He submitted that no infirmity can be found in the impugned award of the Labour Court, Dehradun. He submitted that the Labour Court, Dehradun accepted the case of the respondent no.2 in toto that the petitioner had indulged in misconduct and the domestic enquiry initiated by the respondent no.2 was fair and proper and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner at any point of time. He also submitted that the enquiry being fair and proper and the charges having been proved against the petitioner, the respondent no.2 was justified in dismissing the services of the petitioner. He argued that the Labour Court, Dehradun, vide its award dated 18.09.1996, held the enquiry to be fair and proper. He also submitted that the enquiry being fair and proper and the charges having been proved against the petitioner, the respondent no.2 was justified in dismissing the services of the petitioner. He argued that the Labour Court, Dehradun, vide its award dated 18.09.1996, held the enquiry to be fair and proper. He contended that the award of the Labour Court, Dehradun suffers from no illegality and infact, the Labour Court, Dehradun duly considered all the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced before it. He submitted that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court, Dehradun are based on correct perusal of record and correct appreciation of the same and no fault can be found with the impugned award of the Labour Court, Dehradun and the same is not liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the enquiry was held on the principle of natural justice and in accordance with the provisions of the certified standing orders of the respondent no.2 and the same was declared to be fair and proper by the Labour Court, Dehradun in its award dated 18.09.1996. 7. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case and upon perusal of the papers annexed in the paper book, I find that employer has not committed any irregularity and provided full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petitioner secured job by giving false declaration. This ground was sufficient to remove him from service. I do not find any illegality in the award of the Labour Court, so far as removal of the petitioner from service is concerned, but the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun erred in law by not awarding compensation to the petitioner. Considering this fact, I direct the employer to make payment of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only), as compensation, to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. 10. No order as to costs.