JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. Award dated 4.11.1993 passed in I.D. Case No.60 of 1992 passed by the Labour Court, Sambalpur is under challenge whereby and where under following reference i.e., “Whether the action of the management of Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela in terminating the employment of Sri Sudeb Suna, Sweeper w.e.f. 14.07.1981 is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief Sri Suna is entitled to ?”, has been answered against the petitioner-workman, hence this writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner-workman is that he was selected after due process of selection as Learner Sweeper on 20.12.1979 and on completion of successful training, he was appointed as a regular Sweeper on 23.06.1980. The petitioner was working to the best satisfaction of the authorities without any complaint from any quarter till 10.02.1981, when he received a letter from the management by which he was called upon to show cause for giving false information regarding involvement in court case and for suppression of facts in attestation form. In reply to the said letter, the petitioner gave his response stating therein that he had not intentionally suppressed the fact of his alleged involvement in the Court case and requested the management to keep the said matter in abeyance till disposal of criminal case pending before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. After receiving the reply from the petitioner-workman, without any charge-sheet or enquiry, the management has issued a letter being Letter No.514 dated 14.07.1981 removed the petitioner from service. 3. Case of the petitioner is that before inflicting major punishment of removal from service, an enquiry was required but without holding any enquiry since he has been removed from service which is in violation of principle of natural justice and contrary to the provision prescribed in the certified Standing Orders of the management, when the order of removal has not been recalled, the petitioner-workman having no option has raised a dispute and the appropriate government has made reference and referred the matter before the Labour Court, Sambalpur for its adjudication and accordingly it has been answered against opposite party-workman, the petitioner herein. 4. 4. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Labour Court, this writ petition has been filed on the ground that order of removal is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable, since the same has been passed without following the principle of natural justice, without holding of enquiry and without following the provision contained in the certified Standing Orders. Other ground has been taken that the petitioner-workman has raised a ground before the Labour Court that whatever act has been done, that is not intentional but he being an illiterate person has only put his signature in the attestation form which has been filled up by other person, as such he was not known about the contents of attestation form, hence terminating from service will not be proper. 5. Opposite party-management has appeared and filed detail counter affidavit and while placing his case by defending the award, it has been submitted that the Labour Court after taking into consideration all aspect of the matter has passed the order and as such there is no infirmity or perversity in the finding. It has further been submitted that admittedly on the date when the petitioner has filled up attestation form, he was implicated in a criminal case for the offence under Section 457, 380 of the I.P.C. and the petitioner has filled up the attestation form but not given declaration regarding pendency of criminal case upon him but when it was sent for police verification through the D.I.G., Central Industrial Security Force, Rourkela. The CISF personnel has got a report from the Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Sundargarh that there is adverse entry against him and he is facing trial in criminal case pending against him and thereafter show cause notice has been issued upon him as to why his service will not be terminated for giving false declaration and for suppressing the fact as per the conditions of his employment. The petitioner has submitted reply to the show cause notice but the management after being not satisfied with the reply has terminated from service on the ground of giving false declaration in the attestation form and this aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the Labour Court and thereafter the award has been passed answering the reference against the petitioner-workman. 6. 6. The Labour Court after taking into consideration that when there is specific condition mentioned in Clause-12(i) of the attestation form regarding pendency of a criminal case against a candidate who is desirous for getting a job under Rourkela Steel Plant, hence it was the duty of the petitioner to give correct declaration by filling up the attestation form, but the petitioner intentionally has not given such declaration which lead to active concealment of the material fact and thereafter show cause notice has been issued for alleged violation of the terms of the appointment wherein a condition has been contained in Clause-13 that after joining, if it would found to have made any misstatements or suppressed any information in application form for employment, the offer of appointment will be liable to be summarily terminated without any notice and in compliance of the said condition, the management-opposite party has terminated the petitioner from service. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents on record, it is evident that the petitioner has got employment as learner Sweeper under the management-Rourkela Steel Plant on 22.12.1979 on a stipend of Rs. 375/- per month for a period of one year with a condition that on successful completion of training he will be appointed as Sweeper in the scale of Rs.400/-8-488/- and that a separate offer of appointment with detailed terms and conditions will be issued at that time and in pursuant to the said offer of appointment, the petitioner joined the service as learner Sweeper on 7.1.1980 and before joining service, the petitioner-workman filled up attestation form wherein he declared particulars detail like name, address, family members etc. in the attestation form. He was required to fill up against item No.12(i), if he was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention, bound down, fined by a law court, convicted by law court etc. to which the petitioner has been specifically answered to have not been arrested, prosecuted etc. duly filled up and submitted on 31.12.1979, which was sent for police verification through D.I.G., Central Industrial Security Force, Rourkela. The C.I.S.F. after getting attestation form verified, got a report from the Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Sundergarh stating that there is adverse entry against him to the effect the he was facing trial in the criminal case pending against him and accordingly communicated the said fact to the management-opposite party. The C.I.S.F. after getting attestation form verified, got a report from the Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Sundergarh stating that there is adverse entry against him to the effect the he was facing trial in the criminal case pending against him and accordingly communicated the said fact to the management-opposite party. Thereafter the management-opposite party has issued show cause notice on 10.02.1981 as to why service of the petitioner-workman shall not be terminated for giving false declaration and for suppressing the fact as per the conditions of the employment. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner-workman admitted the fact of his arrest and released on bail and about the pendency of the criminal case under Section 457, 380 of the I.P.C. 8. The appointing authority thereafter terminated the petitioner-workman from service on the ground of suppression of the fact and giving false declaration in the attestation form and as per the terms and conditions of offer of appointment issued in his favour. 9. In the backdrop of the factual aspect of the matter, the Labour Court has formulated two issues for his termination i.e., as follows:- (i) “Whether the action of the management of Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela in terminating the employment of Sri Sudeb Suna, Sweeper w.e.f. 14.07.1981 is legal and/or justified ? and (ii) If not, to what relief Sri Suna is entitled to ?” The Labour Court after framing these two issues has proceeded to answer the same. The Labour Court after taking into consideration the fact that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that there was a criminal case pending much before his filling up attestation form under Clause 12(i) and as such it has been held by Labour Court that it is a clear case of violation of condition of offer of appointment issued on 27.06.1980 which contains a condition in Clause-13, which is being reproduced herein below:- “this offer of appointment is subject to your producing your original certificate, Degree or Diploma and submitting the attested copies of such documents at the time of joining in support of the statements made in our application for employment. After joining the post in terms of this offer, your appointment will be liable to be summarily terminated without any notice in case you are found to have made any misstatements or suppressed any information in your application for employment or if you are found to hold any degree, diploma or certificate which is not recognized by the Govt. of India.” Thus, the petitioner has accepted the offer of appointment that in case of suppression or misstatements of information in application form, the service would be terminated without issuing any show cause notice. 10. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he was implicated in a criminal case in terms of an F.I.R. arising out of G.R. Case No.327 of 1976 dated 17.06.1976 in which he was taken into judicial custody, however released on bail on 31.09.1979. The petitioner while seeking the engagement ought to have disclosed all the facts as per the requirement made in the attestation form but he suppressed these things, however show cause notice was issued and he admitted about the fact of pending of criminal case. 11. The management-opposite party after following the conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment as contained in Clause-13 (Ext.3) has issued show cause notice, however no show cause notice is required but in order to provide opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the said provision has been followed which has been responded to by the petitioner and the guilt has been admitted regarding suppression of the material fact and thereafter he has been terminated from service on the ground of suppression and misrepresentation of material fact. The Labour Court after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has answered the reference against opposite party-workman. 12. The Labour Court after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has answered the reference against opposite party-workman. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the award has submitted that a full fledged enquiry ought to have conducted by following the provision of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, but this argument is of no substance for the reason that the question of applicability of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is only for such employee who is holding the “civil post” but admittedly the petitioner who has been engaged as Sweeper for a period of one year subject to regularization in service on successful completion of training but before that it has come to the notice of the authorities that in course of police verification of the past character of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, as such provision as contained in Article 311(2) will not be held to be applicable further for the reason that the provision of service code will be applicable to an employee unless a person holds the post permanently, his service would be governed by the terms and conditions incorporated in the appointment letter. Reference needs to be referred in the case of State of Punjab and others vrs. Surinder Kumar and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 1593 . Thus, there is no denial about the settled proposition that so long the service of an employee is confirmed, he cannot take advantage of the service rule rather he will be governed by the terms and conditions of offer of appointment. 13. There is also no dispute about the settled proposition that under the provision of Article 311 (2), initiation of regular departmental proceeding is required to be followed if the employee is under the regular establishment but here in this case, the petitioner-workman was not under the regular establishment rather he had been engaged subject to successful completion of training and in the meanwhile, it has come to the notice of the authorities of the management that he has suppressed material fact violating terms and conditions of the offer of appointment, show cause notice has issued, thereafter he has been terminated from service. Hence, on this backdrop, there is no force of the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. 14. Hence, on this backdrop, there is no force of the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. 14. It is also settled that while entering into a service, the candidate is required to come with clean hand i.e., without suppressing the material information. Implication in a criminal case is undisputedly material fact to be disclosed by the candidate before entering the service under the management, but the same has not been done by the petitioner-workman, even though there is specific mention in Clause-12(i) contained in the attestation form. Thus, the petitioner has suppressed this material fact and suppression of material fact amounts to fraud as per the definition of fraud stipulated in Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act. If such candidate will get employment suppressing the fact regarding involvement of criminal case, he is not deserved to be shown any sympathy for the reason that “fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” Reference needs to be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon;ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalavaraya Naidu vrs. Jagannath reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 , wherein it has been held that; “A judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is nullity and non est in the eye of law”. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar vrs. State of Uttaranchal & ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 wherein after taking into consideration the judgments rendered in the cases of Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vrs. M/s. Shaw Brothers reported in (1992) 1 SCC 543, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Rajendra Singh & ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 581 , Rama Chandra Singh Vrs. Savitri Devi reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319 , it has been held at para-18 and 25, which is being quoted herein below:- “18. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. In Union of India vrs. M. Bhaskaran reported in 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100 this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vrs. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. In Union of India vrs. M. Bhaskaran reported in 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100 this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vrs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi reported in (1990) 3 SCC 655 , observed as if by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer. 25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus – a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent court. In such a case the legal maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing.” Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken the view that if appointment/engagement has been obtained by commission of fraud, it has no leg to stand, taking into consideration this settled proposition of law, the Labour Court has answered the reference against the petitioner-workman. After going through the award impugned in this writ petition and on the basis of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of conscious view that there is no infirmity in the award and as such there is no requirement to make any interference with the same. 16. Even otherwise also the power of judicial review of the High to the extent that if the Court sitting under Article 226 is very limited order is without jurisdiction or the finding is perverse or there is any error apparent on the face of record, but according to us, there is no perversity or error apparent on the face of record. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court by its Full Bench in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court by its Full Bench in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. K. S. Radhakrishnan and others reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 wherein at paragraph-7 their Lordships have been pleased to hold as follows:- “7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of tact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the. Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was' insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised.” the proposition laid down in the case of Syed Yakoob is still holds good. After going through the settled proposition of law which still hold good as has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Krishna Kant Pandey, (2015) 4 SCC 270 wherein their Lordships while discussing the scope of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of showing interference with the finding of the Tribunal has been pleased to hold after placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vrs. Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447 as follows: “17. In case of finding of facts, the court should not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the observations of his Court in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta where this Court observed that the High Court could not in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. The High Court was not competent to correct errors of facts by examining the evidence and reappreciating. The High Court was not competent to correct errors of facts by examining the evidence and reappreciating. Speaking for the Court, Bhagwati, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed at p. 1301 of the report as follows: (SCC p. 864, para 7) “The special civil application preferred by the appellant was admittedly an application under Article 227 and it is, therefore, material only to consider the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under that article. Did the High Court have jurisdiction in an application under Article 227 to disturb the findings of fact reached by the District Court? It is well settled by the decision of this Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath that the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways v. Sukumar Mukherjee to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. This statement of law was quoted with approval in the subsequent decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Bose v. Commr. of Hills Division and it was pointed out by Sinha, J., as he then was, speaking on behalf of the court in that case: It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, are not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.” 18. Thus, it is evident that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the fact finding on issuing writ of certiorari, if the order is without jurisdiction or the finding is perverse or there is any error apparent on the face of record. After going through the award, we are of the considered view that no such exception is available to make interference with the finding given by the Labour Court. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the same. After going through the award, we are of the considered view that no such exception is available to make interference with the finding given by the Labour Court. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the same. In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed having no merit.