JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Ms. Desai, learned advocate, for Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In this petition, the petitioner workman has challenged award dated 7.4.2005 passed by learned Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No. 490 of 2000 whereby the learned Labour Court rejected the reference preferred by present petitioner. 3. So far as the facts involved in and leading to submission of present petition are concerned, it has emerged from the record and submission by learned advocates for the petitioner workman and the respondent employer that the petitioner workman raised a dispute against termination of his service by present respondent. The dispute was referred by appropriate government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court and the learned Labour Court rejected the reference. 3.1 The petitioner workman challenged termination of his service on the ground that the respondent dismissed him from service in violation of principles of natural justice. In the statement of claim which the petitioner filed before the learned Labour Court, he claimed that he joined the service with the respondent employer w.e.f. 15.1.1971 as heavy vehicle driver and worked with the respondent for almost 29 years before the respondent dismissed him from service without conducting domestic inquiry. 3.2 From the record, it has emerged that somewhere about 18 years after the petitioner joined the service as heavy vehicle driver, the respondent had issued a communication dated 6.12.1999 with regard to the date of birth and the respondent thereby called for original certificates for verification of petitioner's birth date. 3.3 It has also emerged that subsequently, the respondent board issued notice dated 20.5.2000 and alleged that at the time of appointment, the workman had tendered fake or fabricated certificate which reflected 15.5.1952 as the petitioner's birth date whereas it is found that actually the petitioner's birth date is 12.3.1955 and that if the said birth date i.e. 12.3.1955 is taken into account, it would translate into the situation which would show that (a) the petitioner informed incorrect details at the time of appointment, and (b) the petitioner secured appointment when he was minor since at the time when he was appointed, his age was less than 18 years. It was alleged that though he was not eligible for appointment, he committed fraud and moral turpitude and secured appointment and that therefore, his service is liable to be terminated in view of Clause No. 16 of GSO-7 dated 4.10.1960. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why his service should not be terminated. 3.4 The petitioner submitted his reply/explanation dated 23.5.2000. Thereafter, another notice dated 5.6.2000 on the same line and with same instruction was issued. The said notice dated 5.6.2000 was also responded to by the petitioner vide his reply dated 6.6.2000. 3.5 According to the petitioner, without considering the said reply/explanation dated 23.5.2000 and 6.6.2000, the respondent passed order dated 9.6.2000 and dismissed him from service without conducting domestic inquiry and without granting any opportunity of hearing and defence. 3.6 With such allegations, the petitioner claimed that the respondent's action of terminating his service is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner also claimed that he had neither forged nor fabricated the certificate nor the certificate was a fake certificate. 3.7 He also claimed that the certificate was issued by the school where he prosecuted his studies. 3.8 The petitioner also claimed that he had served with the respondent for about 29 years before his service came to be terminated in such arbitrary manner without granting opportunity of hearing. The petitioner also claimed that during entire interregnum, i.e. from the date he was appointed until May 2000, at any point of time, (except the general notice dated 6.12.1999) any objection with regard to record or the birth date or the school leaving certificate was never raised by the board and suddenly the petitioner board issued notice dated 20.5.2000 and 5.6.2000. With such allegations and contentions, the petitioner prayed that the termination from service may be set aside and the respondent board should be directed to reinstate him with consequential benefits. 4. The respondent board opposed the reference and the demand of the petitioner. The respondent board filed its written statement and claimed that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 12.3.1955 and that the said information was supplied to the petitioner board by the concerned school. 4. The respondent board opposed the reference and the demand of the petitioner. The respondent board filed its written statement and claimed that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 12.3.1955 and that the said information was supplied to the petitioner board by the concerned school. The respondent claimed that before dismissing the petitioner from service, it had issued notice dated 20.5.2000 and 5.6.2000 and that therefore, the allegation and contention that the petitioner's service was termination in violation of principles of natural justice is incorrect and unjustified. The respondent board also claimed that at the time when the petitioner was appointed, he was minor and had not completed 18 years of age and therefore, he was not eligible for appointment, however, the petitioner was appointed on the basis of the certificate submitted by him which reflected 15.5.1952 as the date of birth of the petitioner whereas the correct birth date is 12.3.1955. According to the respondent board, the petitioner had submitted fake or forged or fabricated certificate. The respondent board claimed that in light of such facts, the order dismissing the petitioner from service is justified and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in its action. 5. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner joined the service with the respondent board in January 1971 and that after he had completed service of almost 29 years with the board, his service came to be abruptly terminated by the board by invoking clause 16 of the GSO No. 7. He emphasized that petitioner's service was terminated illegally and in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner had submitted the certificate which was issued by the school where he had studied and that therefore, he cannot be penalized. He also claimed that for 29 years the Board never questioned the details and/or the documents and suddenly after almost 29 years the Board started the action and collected details from the schools without intimation to the petitioner and used such material without granting opportunity of hearing. According to the petitioner his service is terminated arbitrarily and it is punitive action without opportunity of hearing, hence void. According to the petitioner his service is terminated arbitrarily and it is punitive action without opportunity of hearing, hence void. 5.1 The learned advocate for the respondent board claimed that when the petitioner workman secured the service, he was minor and though he had not completed 18 years of age, the petitioner, on the strength of School Leaving Certificate, claimed that the date of his birth was 15.5.1952. The learned counsel for the board claimed that on the strength of the said document, i.e. School Leaving Certificate, the petitioner claimed that he had completed 18 years of age and therefore was eligible for appointment, however, upon enquiry with the concerned school (which had issued the certificate), it was informed that the date of birth of the petitioner is 12.3.1955 (and not 15.5.1952 as claimed by the petitioner) and therefore, after issuing two notices calling upon the workman to submit evidence or explanation and having noticed that satisfactory evidence or explanation was not offered, the service of the petitioner was discontinued since he secured appointment on wrong information and at the time when he was minor/illegible for appointment. According to the respondent board, opportunity of explanation was granted to the petitioner and therefore, the allegation that his service was terminated in violation of principles of natural justice, is not correct. The learned advocate for the respondent board, relied on the decision in case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors. [ (2004) 2 SCC 105 ] and the decision in case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav [ (2003) 3 SCC 437 ]. 6. I have considered the submissions by learned advocates for the petitioner workman and the respondent board. I have also considered the material on record and examined the impugned award. 7. So as to examine rival claims, it is necessary to take into account the factual background. 7.1 The petitioner came to be appointed as Driver, w.e.f. 15.1.1971. The petitioner has accepted and admitted that in December 1999 the board had issued a communication informing that on examination of personal record it was necessary to verify personal details related to his date of birth and therefore he should submit original documents, viz. Birth Certificate and/or School Leaving Certificate. The petitioner has accepted and admitted that in December 1999 the board had issued a communication informing that on examination of personal record it was necessary to verify personal details related to his date of birth and therefore he should submit original documents, viz. Birth Certificate and/or School Leaving Certificate. He was informed that if on conclusion of the inquiry, it is found that the details supplied by him were incorrect, then, the board will take necessary steps and actions in accordance with rules. 7.2 According to the case put-up by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court, he had claimed that after he received the communication dated 6.12.1999 from the board, he had received a show-cause notice dated 20.5.2000. According to the respondent, before the said notice dated 20.5.2000, any other notice or intimation (except first intimation dated 6.12.1999) was not issued nor any inquiry was conducted nor any opportunity of hearing was granted. 7.3 According to the petitioner, he had submitted his reply vide his letter dated 23.5.2000, however, without considering the said reply and without granting any opportunity of hearing and defence another notice dated 5.6.2000 was issued and he had replied the said notice vide his letter dated 6.6.2000 and thereafter, his service came to be terminated on 9.6.2000. After mentioning the said details, the petitioner also insisted that the date of his birth is 12.5.1955. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel, also claimed that upon demand for the documents from the board, he had submitted an application to the school seeking certificate - clarification and in reply, the school i.e. Bharatiya Vidhya Mandir, Kandla had informed him vide letter dated 13.6.2000 that according to the school's record, the then in-charge Principal Mr. P.G. Rajvanshi issued the certificate on the basis of the entry-details recorded at serial No. 24-GSS No. 104 that 15.5.1952 is mentioned as his birth date. He claimed that the said intimation dated 30.6.2000 was given by the then Principal who also said that entry in the school register was made by the then in-charge Principal Mr. Rajvanshi. 8.1 According to Mr. He claimed that the said intimation dated 30.6.2000 was given by the then Principal who also said that entry in the school register was made by the then in-charge Principal Mr. Rajvanshi. 8.1 According to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel, if the same school gave two different information and provided different details at different time and that too without claiming that at any point of time, the school had not issued the certificate reflecting 15.5.1952 as birth date of the petitioner, then, the board could not have jumped to the conclusion, and that too without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, that he had submitted fake or fabricated certificate. According to the petitioner, he should have been granted opportunity of cross-examination of the school authority, however, the said opportunity was denied to him. 9. From the facts of the case, it has also emerged that as against such claim of the workman before the learned Labour Court, the board had claimed that the allegation about the violation of principles of natural justice is incorrect, inasmuch as vide letter dated 16.12.1999, the petitioner was granted opportunity to provide relevant documents and thereafter show cause notice dated 20.5.2000 was also served to the petitioner. The board also claimed that the workman had submitted his reply dated 23.5.2000 and subsequently second show cause notice dated 5.6.2000 was also served to the workman. The board claimed that the respondent had submitted his replies, but the reply did not satisfy the authority and that therefore, the board had called for the details/response from the school authority. The board claimed that it had no knowledge or idea about any letter dated 13.6.2000. According to the board, the school authority informed the board that according to entry No. 104 in the general register, the birth date of the concerned workman is 12.3.1955 which would mean that the school leaving certificate which reflected 15.5.1952 as the birth date of the workman is not true and correct. In light of the fact that notice dated 23.5.2000 and notice dated 5.6.2000 were issued by the board, the board denied the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. In light of the fact that notice dated 23.5.2000 and notice dated 5.6.2000 were issued by the board, the board denied the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. According to the board, the petitioner secured the employment when he was minor and though at the relevant time he had not completed 18 years of age, he submitted a school leaving certificate which reflected that he had completed 18 years of age, however, the details mentioned in the certificate were not in consonance with the details in the school record. 10. From rival details which were presented before the learned Labour Court, it has emerged that a regular and formal domestic inquiry was not conducted by the board before the service of the respondent came to be terminated. 11. It is pertinent that it is not the case or even allegation of the school authorities that the school leaving certificate which was submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment was not issued by the school and/or that it was not genuine and/or that the signature of the principal was not genuine and was forged. 11.1 In view of the fact that the school authorities did not claim or allege that the certificate which the petitioner had submitted at the time of appointment was not issued by the school and/or that it was forged and fabricated, it was necessary for the board to examine relevant facts in light of correct and complete details and from all perspective proper detail and after intimation to the petitioner and in presence of, or atleast by affording opportunity to the petitioner to deal with the details or information and documents made available to the board by the school authority. The copies of the documents provided by the school authority and the correspondence with the Board should have been supplied to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the action was initiated about 28 years after the petitioner was appointed by the board. 11.2 It is pertinent that the board did not undertake process of getting the certificate (which was submitted by the petitioner) verified for determining its veracity (i.e. whether it was genuine or not). It is not in dispute that the action was initiated about 28 years after the petitioner was appointed by the board. 11.2 It is pertinent that the board did not undertake process of getting the certificate (which was submitted by the petitioner) verified for determining its veracity (i.e. whether it was genuine or not). 11.3 From the reply filed by the board before the learned Labour Court, it has emerged that the board had directly entered into communications/correspondences with the school where the petitioner had studied and the board had not kept the petitioner informed about its correspondence and inquiry with the school and copies of the correspondence exchanged between the school and the board was not provided to the petitioner. It also appears that according to the board's reply filed before the learned Labour Court, the board had addressed a letter to the school and requested the school to provide the details related to the petitioner's birth date and in response to the said request, the school had forwarded a copy of petitioner's school leaving certificate which reflected 12.3.1955 as petitioner's birth date. [Though, in the written statement it is mentioned that the certificate from Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir was received in December 2000, during hearing of the petition, learned advocate for the respondent board submitted that the reference of December 2000 in paragraph No. 9 of the written statement is inadvertent mistake and actually the information/letter of the certificate from Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir was received in February 2000]. According to the Board similar information/letter and certificates were received by the board in January 2000 from another school viz. Swami Narayan School, where the petitioner had studied for short time. On the basis of the said communication alongwith which the school had forwarded the copies of School Register/Certificate, the board terminated the service of the petitioner. 12. According to the Board similar information/letter and certificates were received by the board in January 2000 from another school viz. Swami Narayan School, where the petitioner had studied for short time. On the basis of the said communication alongwith which the school had forwarded the copies of School Register/Certificate, the board terminated the service of the petitioner. 12. What emerges from foregoing discussion is that the board had entered into the correspondence with the school(s) where the petitioner had studied and according to the respondent board one of the said two schools had informed the respondent board that in the school register, 12.3.1955 was recorded as petitioner's birth date and on strength of the said reply the respondent board had issued Notice dated 5.6.2000 and called for petitioner's explanation within 3 days and before the petitioner could take any steps on the basis of the material supplied along with notice dated 5.6.2000 and before he could make any inquiry with the schools or take any other steps as may be required in the facts and circumstance of the case (with which he was confronted) on 4th day from the date of intimation i.e. on 9.6.2000, the respondent board terminated service of the petitioner. Within very short span of about 4 days after the termination order i.e. on 13.6.2000 the petitioner received communication from one of the aforesaid two schools (i.e. Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir). The said communication offered explanation which deserved to be considered by the Board before passing the order. However, the Board did not grant sufficient time to the petitioner and passed order in haste. 12.1 It is pertinent that according to the petitioner immediately after he received communication dated 13.6.2000 from the Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir (which is placed on record of present petition) he had forwarded the same to the school to support and justify his reply and explanation with regard to the discrepancies with reference to his birth date, however according to the petitioner, the respondent board did not take into account the said communication dated 13.6.2000 and stuck to its decision dated 9.6.2000. 12.2 Now, when the said letter dated 13.6.2000 addressed by Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir to the petitioner in response to the petitioner's letter is examined, it comes out that according to the said school (i.e. Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir) both dates i.e. 15.5.1952 and 12.3.1955 are recorded/mentioned in the registers of the school. 12.2 Now, when the said letter dated 13.6.2000 addressed by Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir to the petitioner in response to the petitioner's letter is examined, it comes out that according to the said school (i.e. Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir) both dates i.e. 15.5.1952 and 12.3.1955 are recorded/mentioned in the registers of the school. It also comes out from the said letter dated 13.6.2000 that the certificate which the petitioner had submitted to the board at the time of interview and appointment was actually, and in fact, issued by the school and it was genuine certificate and not forged or fabricated certificate. 12.3 On reading the said letter dated 13.6.2000 it comes out that the Principal of the school (Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir was holding said post on 13.6.2000) informed the petitioner (in response to the petitioner's letter/request) that the certificate which was issued by the school on 1.6.1970, was issued by the then Principal Mr. K.J. Kalyani and that the said certificate dated 1.6.1970 was prepared and issued on the basis of the details recorded at serial No. 24 of the school register. However, in the school's general register at serial No. 104 12.3.1955 is recorded as his birth date. 12.4 Thus the said letter dated 13.6.2000 gives out that two different dates i.e. 15.5.1952 and 12.3.1955 are recorded in the school registers and one certificate (i.e. certificate issued on 1.6.1970) was issued by the school on the basis of the details recorded in one register at serial No. 24 and the certificate was signed and issued by the then Principal of the school who was holding the post on 1.6.1970 whereas second certificate (copy whereof was provided by the school to the board) i.e. certificate dated 24.12.1968 was prepared on the basis of details recorded at serial No. 104 in general register. 13. 13. Consequently, one undisputed fact which emerges from the said communication dated 13.6.2000 is the fact that even according to the school authority, [as mentioned in letter dated 13.6.2000 (exh.40)], the school record itself contains and reflects two dates as the birth date of the petitioner and the school authority itself had issued the certificate on 1.6.1970 which reflected 12.3.1955 as the petitioner's birth date and the said certificate was also issued by the school authorities and was given to the petitioner who, in turn, had submitted it to the Board at the time of interview/appointment, however, in the other certificate the school authorities mentioned 15.5.1952 as petitioner's birth date. 13.1 It is true that the copies of the certificate supplied by Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir and Swami Narayan Vidhyalaya to the respondent board reflect 12.3.1955 as petitioner's birth date. However, it is also equally true that the certificate dated 1.6.1970 issued by the school i.e. Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir reflects 15.5.1952 as the petitioner birth date and consequently there is discrepancies as regards petitioner's birth date in the certificate issued by the school authorities. It is not the case even of the school that the certificate issued on 1.6.1970 was not issued by school authority and/or that the said certificate is fake/fabricated and/or that Principal's signature is forged. On the contrary, the school has accepted that the said certificate also was issued by it's authority and that in school's register both dates are recorded. This aspect emerged from the Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir's letter dated 13.6.2000 which was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent board. In that view of the matter, the board should have reviewed its decision of terminating service of the petitioner on the ground that he had submitted forged and fabricated certificate. It is pertinent that the letter dated 13.6.2000 by the Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir clarified and established one important aspect viz. that the certificate dated 1.6.1970 which was submitted by the petitioner at the time of his interview/appointment was not forged or fabricated certificate but the said certificate was genuine certificate and in fact the said certificate also was issued by the school authorities (i.e. the then Principal of the school Mr. Kalyani). that the certificate dated 1.6.1970 which was submitted by the petitioner at the time of his interview/appointment was not forged or fabricated certificate but the said certificate was genuine certificate and in fact the said certificate also was issued by the school authorities (i.e. the then Principal of the school Mr. Kalyani). 13.2 Under the circumstances, very ground on which the action was taken by the respondent board against the petitioner and that too, without conducting full fledged formal domestic inquiry is based on shaky platform and its foundation is not free from doubt, inasmuch as there are two sets of genuine certificates issued by the school authorities (i.e. Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir) at different point of time and that therefore such drastic action of terminating service on the ground that the petitioner submitted forged or fabricated certificate was not justified, more particularly in light of the communication dated 13.6.2000 issued by the same school (i.e. Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir) who issued two certificates with different birth dates, the petitioner board ought to have atleast granted sufficient and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by conducting regular domestic inquiry wherein the petitioner may get opportunity to examine witness and to conduct cross-examination. 13.3 On this count, i.e. in defence of its action of not conducting regular and formal domestic inquiry and to justify said action learned advocate for the respondent relied on the decision in case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala 2004 (2) SCC 105 and the decision in case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav 2003 (3) SCC 437 and submitted that in such cases full fledge domestic inquiry is not compulsory and if an opportunity to offer explanation is given, then it would comply the principles of natural justice and it cannot be alleged that the employer has not complied the principles of natural justice. She also relied on Clause 16 of GSO 7 and submitted that the said provision enable the board to terminate service of an employee without conducting inquiry. She also relied on Clause 16 of GSO 7 and submitted that the said provision enable the board to terminate service of an employee without conducting inquiry. 13.4 So far as the said clause 16 of GSO 7 is concerned, it has to be construed in light of the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Central Water Inland Transport Corporation and the requirement to comply principles of natural justice by granting sufficient as well as effective, actual and real opportunity of hearing to the employee must be read into the said provision. The board cannot invoke and comply the said provision by eliminating the requirement of granting effective opportunity of hearing and defence to the employee before taking drastic action of removal from service. 13.5 So far as the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court on which learned advocate for the respondent relied are concerned, it is appropriate to mention that in cases where simple explanation in response to the show-cause notice by employer can serve the purpose and requirement of sufficient as well as effective opportunity of hearing and defence then in such cases the requirement of formal, regular and full fledged inquiry may not be insisted upon. Besides this, even according to the said judgment the cases where facts are disputed and volatile then there must be sufficient evidence available for disciplinary authority to reach to final conclusion and decision and for gathering and collecting such evidence formal full fledge domestic inquiry would be required wherein workman would get effective opportunity of hearing and also deal with the evidence on which the employer seeks to rely and at the same time he can also submit relevant evidence which inquiry officer and disciplinary authority should consider before taking final decision. 14. In present case, the respondent board after 29 years of petitioner's service called for and received some material from the authorities of two schools of the board for the first time and supplied the said material to the petitioner along with its notice dated 5.6.2000 and allowed only 3 days time to the petitioner to respond/offer explanation. 14. In present case, the respondent board after 29 years of petitioner's service called for and received some material from the authorities of two schools of the board for the first time and supplied the said material to the petitioner along with its notice dated 5.6.2000 and allowed only 3 days time to the petitioner to respond/offer explanation. The petitioner immediately took action and entered into communication with the school i.e. Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir who had issued certificate dated 1.6.1970 (which he had submitted at the time of interview/appointment) and he received letter from the said school i.e. Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir on 13.6.2000 i.e. within 7-8 days from the date on which he had received show-cause notice dated 5.6.2000. However, the Board, unfortunately, did not consider it appropriate just and necessary to wait even for one week and took hasty decision within 4 days and terminated service of the petitioner on 9.6.2000. Even thereafter (i.e. when the petitioner submitted the school's letter dated 13.6.2000) the respondent board did not take a reasonable maturity and justify approach though it received the copy of letter dated 13.6.2000, which provided sufficient and reasonable explanation with regard to discrepancies in the birth date and it also clarified that certificate submitted by the petitioner was not forged or fabricated certificate and the information he had supplied at the time of interview/appointment was recorded in school's register and it was not incorrect and was supported by the certificate. 14.1 Under the circumstances the decision on which the respondent has placed reliance does not help the respondent to justify its arbitrary decision which was taken in violation of principles of natural justice i.e. without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 14.2 In view of the fact of present case the said decision would not be applicable in present matter and it does not help the case of the respondent or does not justify the action of the respondent board. 15. In this context, it is also relevant to note that when the petitioner felt aggrieved by the respondent's action and more particularly the respondent board's stand despite the communication dated 13.6.2000, he raised industrial dispute and approached the labour Court against decision and action of the respondent board. 15. In this context, it is also relevant to note that when the petitioner felt aggrieved by the respondent's action and more particularly the respondent board's stand despite the communication dated 13.6.2000, he raised industrial dispute and approached the labour Court against decision and action of the respondent board. It is relevant to note that the Principal of Secondary Division of Bharatiya Vidhya Mandir, Kandla was examined as witness by the respondent board during the proceedings before the learned Labour Court. On this count it is pertinent to note that even the said witness admitted the fact that the certificate which was submitted by the petitioner at the time of his interview/appointment was issued by Bharatiya Vidhya Mandir, i.e. by the then Principal of the school. It is also pertinent to note that the said witness also accepted during his deposition (during his cross-examination) that the details which are mentioned in Exh. 37 were recorded on the basis of the details mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate issued by Bharatiya Vidhya Mandir. The said witness also admitted and accepted that at Sr. No. 104 in the register, there was no signature of the Principal in Column No. 14. The most important aspect is that the said witness also accepted that in Exh. 38 the certificate issued by the school the date 15.5.1952 is mentioned as birth date of the petitioner. 15.1 The deposition of the witness also established one aspect, viz. that the respondent board took action against the petitioner without affording reasonable sufficient and effective opportunity of hearing and if proper procedure of inquiring the matter in proper detail, (i.e. of conducting a formal domestic enquiry) wherein both sides would get opportunity to examine the witnesses and place sufficient material on record, then it would have brought out correct and complete facts and appropriate decision on the basis of the relevant material could have been taken. The above discussed aspects also establish that the decision of the respondent board of discounting the requirement of formal domestic enquiry was taken without considering school's letter dated 13.6.2000 and other relevant facts and that the said decision and action was not justified and its decision of terminating the service of the petitioner without affording effective opportunity of hearing by conducting proper domestic enquiry, also is not justified and cannot be sustained. Actually, the facts of the case are such which justified and warranted proper domestic enquiry before taking drastic action of terminating the service of the petitioner. 15.2 The respondent board's action of terminating the service of the petitioner, in light of such discrepancies and in light of the facts of the case, is not justified. 15.3 Unfortunately, the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate this aspect which emerges from the material on record before the learned Labour Court. 15.4 Further, it is also relevant to note that the respondent board had initiated action against the petitioner after he had completed service of about 29 years. During the span of said 29 years, more particularly immediately after the petitioner was appointed, the respondent board did not take any action or did not even start any verification process and initiated such verification process after 29 years and then did not allow sufficient time to the respondent and without granting sufficient time and without conducting formal and regular inquiry wherein the petitioner may get adequate opportunity place his evidence and deal with the material on which Board relief, the Board took the drastic action. Moreover, it was established before the board as well as before the learned Labour Court that the document submitted by the petitioner was not forged or fabricated. Therefore, the action taken on the premise that the petitioner submitted forged or fabricated certificate, was not and is not justified. 16. The other ground or justification which is put forward to justify the action by the board is that the petitioner had given incorrect information at the time of appointment. From the foregoing discussion, it has emerged that even the school authority admitted that its register contained and reflected two dates as the birth date of the petitioner and even the school did not claim that the certificate which was submitted by the petitioner was forged or fabricated. In this view of the matter, neither the board nor the learned Labour Court could have reached to the finding that the petitioner had intentionally provided or submitted incorrect information. 16.1 Unfortunately, the learned Labour Court failed to consider and appreciate the above mentioned aspects and the learned Labour Court permitted itself to proceed on erroneous premise. In this view of the matter, neither the board nor the learned Labour Court could have reached to the finding that the petitioner had intentionally provided or submitted incorrect information. 16.1 Unfortunately, the learned Labour Court failed to consider and appreciate the above mentioned aspects and the learned Labour Court permitted itself to proceed on erroneous premise. 16.2 In this view of the matter and for the above mentioned reasons and in the light of the foregoing discussion, neither the award by the learned Labour Court nor the decision and action of the respondent board can be sustained. The action of the respondent board deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. This brings in picture the issue about appropriate relief. 16.3 On this count, it has emerged that the petitioner has already attained age of superannuation in 2012. This means that his service was prematurely terminated when he had 12 years of service in balance at the time when his service came to be terminated. In view of the fact that the decision and action was taken by the board without complying principles of natural justice and without establishing the relevant facts and ingredients of the allegation levelled against the respondent. The decision and action deserve to be set aside and are set aside. However, the question is whether the respondent is entitled for back wages for intervening period, i.e. 2000 to 2012 when he reached age of superannuation. The petitioner was engaged by the respondent board as Driver. Meaning thereby, the petitioner would not have remained unemployed during intervening period. Under the circumstances, the demand for full back wages cannot be accepted. 17. Having regard to the facts of the case and on overall consideration, this Court is of the view that the respondent board should calculate the retiral benefits of the petitioner by treating the petitioner in service until the date on which he reached age of superannuation (after taking into account intervening available/due increments and revision of wages, etc.) i.e. by treating the petitioner's service as continuous until the date on which he reached the age of superannuation and after calculating the retiral dues accordingly (i.e. gratuity and other benefits on that basis) pay the terminal - retiral benefits within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. With aforesaid observations and directions, present petition stands disposed of. With aforesaid observations and directions, present petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.