ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. These two petitions arise out of judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, dated 11-6-2012 in I.D. No. 59 of 2010 where under reference under Section 10(4-A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came to be allowed and order of dismissal dated 10-11-2010 dismissing workman from service, came to be set aside by directing the management to reinstate first party-workman into service within one (1) month from the date of award becomes enforceable, with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits and 50% bad wages till date of reinstatement. 2. Management has assailed this award in W.P. No. 2666 of 2013 on the ground that order of dismissal ought not to have been set aside since Transfer Certificate produced by workman at the time of entering into service, which came to be marked as Ex. M. 7 before Enquiry Officer, was fake and a false document created for the purposes of securing the job and as such, proved misconduct in disciplinary enquiry ought not to have been interfered by Labour Court. Whereas workman has challenged the same award in W.P. No. 16869 of 2013 contending inter alia that when enquiry held by management was not proved or held to be not fair and proper by Labour Court and no contra evidence having been tendered by management, Labour Court could not have withheld 50% back wages since charge alleged against workman was not proved. On these grounds, workman has sought for grant of 100% back wages. 3. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths B.L. Sanjeev, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner-Corporation - management and Sri L. Shekar, learned Counsel appearing for workman. Parties are referred to as per their ranks in Labour Court. 4. Petitioner was appointed as a driver in respondent-Corporation in the year 1992, which was subject to the condition that on verification of documents if it is found that documents are false or fake, his employment would be cancelled without notice. At the time of his selection workman had produced Transfer Certificate bearing No. 48/1969-70 (Admission No. 39/74-75) issued by Government Lower Primary School, Kyalasanahallai, Anekal Taluk. For verification of records produced by petitioner-Corporation instructed its Officers to visit the school in which petitioner is said to have studied. At the time of his selection workman had produced Transfer Certificate bearing No. 48/1969-70 (Admission No. 39/74-75) issued by Government Lower Primary School, Kyalasanahallai, Anekal Taluk. For verification of records produced by petitioner-Corporation instructed its Officers to visit the school in which petitioner is said to have studied. During such verification it was Headmaster who was available at that time had submitted that there was no records in the school with regard to Admission No. 39/74-75. Based on said report, disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against petitioner by issuing articles of charge. After considering the reply submitted by workman it was found same being not satisfactory. Hence, enquiry came to be held by appointing an Enquiry Officer. After issuance of notice and as per the extant Rules prescribed under C and D Regulations Enquiry Officer submitted his report/findings holding that workman is guilty of charges levelled against him. 5. Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of Enquiry Officer and on being satisfied that full opportunity had been extended to workman and considering the seriousness of the charge and also after issuing second show-cause notice and not being satisfied with the reply given, Disciplinary Authority by order dated 10-11-2010 dismissed the workman from service. 6. Being aggrieved by the same workman raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Corporation on service of notice appeared, filed its counter. Based on the pleadings of parties, issues came to be framed on 10-6-2011. Insofar as first issue which relates to whether management had proved that enquiry held was fair and proper, it came to be held in the affirmative. On merits it came to be held by Labour Court that Transfer Certificate-Ex. M. 7 is genuine certificate. However, on account of mistake committed by the then Headmaster in interchanging Transfer Certificate number and admission register number it had given scope to doubt the correction of Transfer Certificate and for the mistake committed by the Principal of the school, first party-workman cannot be held responsible for submitting such Transfer Certificate at the time of being employed in the respondent-Corporation. On these grounds, contention of management came to be rejected and application filed by workman came to be allowed. 7. It is the contention of Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned Counsel appearing for Corporation that Labour Court committed a serious error in arriving at such a conclusion, inasmuch as, author of Ex. On these grounds, contention of management came to be rejected and application filed by workman came to be allowed. 7. It is the contention of Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned Counsel appearing for Corporation that Labour Court committed a serious error in arriving at such a conclusion, inasmuch as, author of Ex. M 7 was not examined by the workman and no other witnesses were examined to prove the contents of Ex. M. 7 and as such, when Corporation has tendered evidence of Security Officer as M.W. 1 to prove that there was no records available in school and had also examined the Principal, who was working at the time evidence was tendered and he had pleaded his ignorance about the contents of Ex. M. 7, burden had shifted on the workman to prove the contents of Ex. M. 7 and same had not been discharged and as such, Labour Court could not have interfered with the well-reasoned findings recorded by Enquiry Officer. Hence, he submits that award of the Labour Court in upsetting the findings of Enquiry Officer is erroneous and contrary to law. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 8. By way of alternate submission, he contends that even otherwise if this Court were to arrive at a conclusion for any reason that award passed by Labour Court is not to be interfered with insofar as reinstatement of workman is concerned, then he prays for affirming the award where under 50% back wages has been withheld on the ground workman had not worked during this period and principle of "no work no pay" would be squarely applicable and as such, workman would not be entitled for 50% back wages. On these grounds, he seeks for setting aside the award and/or to pass suitable orders. 9. Per contra, Sri L. Shekar, learned Counsel appearing for workman by supporting the impugned judgment and award, insofar as, setting aside the order of dismissal of workman, would hasten to add that withholding of 50% of back wages is without any cogent reason and as such, award of Labour Court is to be set aside. He would also submit that once it is held that order of dismissal is bad in law, workman would be entitled to continuity of service and also consequential benefits including back wages and thus, denial of 50% back wages is erroneous. He would also submit that once it is held that order of dismissal is bad in law, workman would be entitled to continuity of service and also consequential benefits including back wages and thus, denial of 50% back wages is erroneous. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that in respect of workmen union there was a dispute pending before Labour Court in I.D. No. 148 of 2005 and as such, Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would squarely get attracted and order of dismissal during the pendency of said dispute is in violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act and as such, order of dismissal is non est, illegal, void at initio from the date it was passed and in support of his submission he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited v. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others 2002-I-LLJ-834 (SC). Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition filed by workman. 10. By way of reply, Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned Counsel appearing for Corporation would submit that finding recorded by Labour Court to arrive at a conclusion that order of termination of service of workman was on account of securing employment in the Corporation on the basis of a fake and concocted certificate and it does not amount to misconduct during the course of employment and therefore, it cannot be held that order of dismissal is non est for want of approval from I Additional Labour Court, which was adjudicating I.D. No. 148 of 2005 and as such, dicta laid down by Apex Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited v. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others, 2002-I-LLJ-834 (SC) is not attracted to the facts of present case. 11. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it is noticed that issue regarding order of dismissal being non est has been dealt by Labour Court in detail while adjudicating issue 4 and regarding its finding is recorded at paragraphs 12 to 26. 11. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it is noticed that issue regarding order of dismissal being non est has been dealt by Labour Court in detail while adjudicating issue 4 and regarding its finding is recorded at paragraphs 12 to 26. Division Bench as well as Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has consistently held that where workman obtained an employment on the basis of alleged fake certificate and proceedings are initiated by issuing a charge-sheet on the said ground, does not amount to misconduct during the course of employment and as such, question of seeking approval would come into play only when workman is dismissed from service for his misconduct, if any, during the course of employment and termination on account of production of fake document or false document, does not tantamount termination for a misconduct, as such obtaining of approval under Section 33(2)(b) would not arise. Said finding is based on sound appreciation of principles of law, which does not call for interference. As such, contention raised by Sri L. Shekar in W.P. No. 16869 of 2013 requires to be rejected and same stands rejected. 12. Now turning my attention to the core issue, which relates to alleged Transfer Certificate-Ex. M. 7, which is said to have been produced by the workman at the time of joining service, when examined in the background of impugned award, it can be noticed that specific charge levelled against the workman was Transfer Certificate produced by him is fake, inasmuch as, a student born in the year 1963 could not have completed 4th standard in the year 1969 and said certificate was indicating that workman was admitted to Standard in the year 1974-75 and as such when contents of Transfer Certificate-Ex. M. 7 is read in whole, it clearly indicates that entries with regard to dates are incorrect. On the ground that it is a fake certificate, charge-sheet came to be issued. In order to prove said charge before the Enquiry Officer, Security Inspector attached to office of Corporation was examined. He had been to the school which had issued said Transfer Certificate. He has stated that he had submitted a representation in writing to the Headmaster of school requesting him to verify school certificates and reply given by the Headmaster by letter dated 23-12-2004-Ex. He had been to the school which had issued said Transfer Certificate. He has stated that he had submitted a representation in writing to the Headmaster of school requesting him to verify school certificates and reply given by the Headmaster by letter dated 23-12-2004-Ex. M. 6 indicated that all the records of the school including admission registers were subjected to theft occurred during the night hours of 23-9-1989 and to that effect the then Headmaster had lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police and as such, present Headmaster had pleaded his inability to make available the school records for the said period. Specific defence or plea put forward by the workman before Enquiry Officer was that Transfer I Certificate-Ex. M. 7 is genuine and it bears the seal and signature of Headmaster, who had then issued the certificate and same also bears emblem of Karnataka State, which is also referred to at paragraph 28 of the impugned award. 13. As rightly observed by Labour Court Transfer Certificate number and admission registration number of workman has obviously been interchanged. It is the mistake of the then Principal/Headmaster or concerned Clerk, who made the entries in Ex. M. 7. Date of birth of workman indicates that he was born on 16-6-1963 and thus, in the year 1974-75 on which date he went out of school he was said to be studying in 4th Standard and during that point of time his age would be 11 years and it would probabilise the standard in which he was studying during the relevant point and on appreciation of all these relevant facts Labour Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that entries in Transfer Certificate-Ex. M. 7 was interchanged. 14. When a charge is levelled by the management-Corporation against workman, initial burden is on the management to prove said charge. In this regard, evidence of M.W. 1 did not throw much light and as such, Corporation has also examined the Principal as M.W. 2 who was available at the time of enquiry. He has categorically stated that records of school would I indicate that on 23-3-1989 there was theft in the school and records have been I stolen and there are no records available in the school. Thus, it would indicate at an undisputed point of time relevant records which had corresponding original entries relating to Ex. He has categorically stated that records of school would I indicate that on 23-3-1989 there was theft in the school and records have been I stolen and there are no records available in the school. Thus, it would indicate at an undisputed point of time relevant records which had corresponding original entries relating to Ex. M. 7 had been stolen and no fault can be laid at the doors of workman in this regard. Even otherwise, management after having examined the Principal did not take any steps to ascertain as to whether Principal, who had affixed his signature to Ex. M. 1 was alive and available to tender evidence or any other person including clerical staff of school who were working at the time Transfer Certificate-Ex. M. 7 came to be issued to prove the entries therein are incorrect or it was fake. On account of this initial burden having not been discharged, Corporation cannot be heard to contend that it had discharged its burden. It is because of this precise reason Labour Court has arrived at a conclusion that mistake in entering dates is an error apparent on the face of record and when document-Ex. M. 7-Transfer Certificate read as a whole by interchanging the entries found therein would clearly disprove the claim of management-Corporation. As such, it came to be held that on assumption and without verifying or corroborating charge by securing production of any other document from other Authorities, Corporation proceeded to initiate disciplinary proceedings against workman by placing him under suspension and later on accepting the report of Enquiry Officer and dismissing him from service, was illegal and improper. This finding recorded by the Labour Court is based on sound and proper appreciation of available evidence on record and there is no good ground made out by Corporation to interfere with this well-reasoned award passed by Labour Court. As such, contention raised by Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned Counsel appearing for Corporation stands rejected. 15. Labour Court having held that order of dismissal dated 10-11-2011 passed by Corporation is perverse and bad in law and has not assigned any reason to withhold 50% back wages. This Court is of the considered view that workman would be entitled to 100% back wages and as such, award insofar as, withholding 50% back wages, is set aside or in other words, writ petition filed by workman deserves to be allowed. This Court is of the considered view that workman would be entitled to 100% back wages and as such, award insofar as, withholding 50% back wages, is set aside or in other words, writ petition filed by workman deserves to be allowed. For the reasons afore stated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) W.P. No. 2666 of 2013 is hereby dismissed. (ii) W.P. No. 16869 of 2013 is hereby allowed in part. (iii) Judgment and award passed by Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D. No. 59 of 2010, dated 11-6-2012, insofar as, withholding 50% back wages from the date of dismissal till date of reinstatement is hereby set aside and held that Corporation is liable to pay 100% back wages. (iv) Corporation shall implement the award as modified by this Court herein above expeditiously at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (v) In all other aspects award of the Labour Court stands affirmed. (vi) No order as to costs.