ORDER : Respondent-workman was appointed as Driver in the establishment of the petitioner on 25th June 1987. Since he caused an accident, Department Enquiry was initiated and when negligence in driving was established he was removed from service on 17th October 1998. The same was subject matter in Reference No.193 of 2000 which was allowed by its award dated 20th November 2003 in which it was directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman into service with 50% back wages. The Corporation questioned the said award of the Labour Court in Writ Petition No.30358 of 2004 and in the writ petition, the order of the Labour Court was modified denying the back wages. On reinstatement of the workman into service in terms of the award, in order to open the service records, it was found that the petitioner had produced transfer certificate to secure job. Accordingly, it was sent for cross-verification and it was found that said certificate did not belong to the petitioner, on the other hand, the Transfer Certificate No.27/72-73 belonged to some other lady. Hence, show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-workman and reply was made by the respondent which was marked before the Labour Court as Exhibit M4. In the reply at internal page number 3 the respondent-workman has stated that he had only produced the said Transfer Certificate No.66/84 with Reg. No.27/72-73 which was issued by the Head Master, Government Model Primary Boys School, Maruthi Extension, Bangalore–560 021 where he had studied up to fifth standard. In internal page number 4 he had further stated that while he was studying in the said school, one Ganganna, who was the Head Master had issued the said certificate on 20th August 1983. This reply was verified through the Block Education Officer who has stated that the particulars furnished by the respondent-workman in the reply to the effect that he had studied at Bangalore is wrong and the said transfer certificate belongs to a different person, which was not issued in the name of the respondent. Enquiry was initiated framing charges and it was held that the respondent-workman had committed an offence of producing false certificate in order to obtain job; and he was dismissed from service. During the enquiry, it was the stand taken by the respondent that Transfer Certificate No.47/2008-2009 was of the respondent and he had not produced TC No.66/84 at any point of time. During the enquiry, it was the stand taken by the respondent that Transfer Certificate No.47/2008-2009 was of the respondent and he had not produced TC No.66/84 at any point of time. In fact, he had not studied at Bangalore and on the other hand he has studied at Government Higher Primary School, Piriyapattana. The Enquiry Officer having considered the case of the respondent workman held that the workman has committed an offence of producing false certificate and he had rightly been dismissed from service. Dispute was raised in ID No.28 of 2013 before Labour Court, Mysore and award had been passed on 04th December 2015 by setting aside the punishment order and directing the respondent to reinstate him into service with all consequential monetary benefits. Against the same, this petition is preferred by the Corporation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that what was produced to the appointment authority by the respondent-workman upon verification it was found that the same stood in the name of a different person who is a lady. When that being the case, there was no occasion for the petitioner to disbelieve the same and a show cause notice was issued and it was admitted by the respondent-workman. When the case of the respondent of having produced false certificate to obtain the job has been admitted, it was not necessary for the petitioner to conduct any departmental proceedings, but proceed to pass the punishment order. However, an enquiry was initiated and it was found that the respondent-workman had produced false Transfer certificate. The learned counsel submits that these aspects have been disbelieved by the Labour Court and by allowing the dispute, a direction is issued to the petitioner to reinstate the workman which is arbitrary and amounts to non-application of mind and hence the learned counsel prays that impugned order passed in ID No.28 of 2013 is to be set aside. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent-workman supports the order and submits to dismiss the petition. It is his strong case that certificate was inserted only by the Petitioner and he had not produced the same at any point of time or relied upon it. On the other hand it is his case that he has studied at Piriyapattana Government High School and Transfer Certificate Annexure-J has been produced at the time of initial appointment. It is his strong case that certificate was inserted only by the Petitioner and he had not produced the same at any point of time or relied upon it. On the other hand it is his case that he has studied at Piriyapattana Government High School and Transfer Certificate Annexure-J has been produced at the time of initial appointment. In support of Annexure-J (W P No.23884/2016), the respondent workman had examined two Head Masters and two other persons who were his classmates and they have supported the case of the respondent. When these material evidences have been adduced, rightly it was relied and considered by the Labour Court and hence no interference is called for in this petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and records. Show-cause notice has been issued to the respondent-workman on the basis of the fact that the Transfer Certificate produced by the respondent does not stand in his name. On the other hand, it was standing in the name of one Rajeshwari and in support of the same, the Head Mistress MW1 has been examined who has produced the relevant records before the enquiry officer and it was the evidence of MW1 that the Transfer Certificate Annexure-A which is bearing No.27/72-73 not at all stands in the name of the respondent-workman, but it was issued in the name of Rajeshwari. Secondly, in addition to the evidence of MW1, the case of the respondent-workman alone has to be looked into, who had given reply to the show-cause notice. In his reply, which is also the part of enquiry, there was a clear-cut admission in internal page number 3 wherein he only has stated that, “I submit that at the time of selection to the post of driver I had submitted a TC No.66/83-84 with reg.No.,27/72-73 issued by the Head Master, Government Middle Primary Boys School, Maruthi Extension, Bangalore-560 021, wherein I had studied up to 5th standard.” Further, in the same paragraph, he further states that “I submit that the information received under the RTI Act supports the details furnished by me in the TC. Admittedly, the TC submitted by me is issued by the Head Master Sri D. Ganganna on 20.08.1983. Therefore, the TC submitted by me is genuine and valid.” When these are the submissions and admission made by the respondent-workman, that again need not be proved. Admittedly, the TC submitted by me is issued by the Head Master Sri D. Ganganna on 20.08.1983. Therefore, the TC submitted by me is genuine and valid.” When these are the submissions and admission made by the respondent-workman, that again need not be proved. However, enquiry was initiated by framing charges in order to provide fullest opportunity to the respondent9 workman. On the basis of evidence of MW1 who is the Head Mistress of the School where the respondent-workman studied, he had not studied in that school. MW1 further states that Transfer Certificate Annexure-A not at all stands in the name of the respondent-workman. When such being the case, nothing more is required to disprove the case of the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the reply to the show-cause notice given by the petitioner was drafted by an Advocate and the same was contrary to the facts. Since the respondent could not understand English language, without knowing what is stated in the reply, the same has been furnished and hence the same cannot be looked into. The said submission of the respondent workman cannot be accepted. Throughout, it was the case of the respondent-workman that it was Transfer Certificate Annexure-A that is produced and not Transfer Certificate Annexure-J. At later point, he states that he had studied in a different school at Piriyapattana, Mysore Taluk and District and he has examined two Head Masters and classmates. The same does not hold water since there is admission. At this juncture, what is to be looked into is whether the respondent who had acquired the efficiency in driving can be condoned. In this regard, I have verified from the file placed before me by the petitioner and it is found that most of the time the respondent workman had not worked for the petitioner and he was out of employment and he was taken into job only as per the Award passed in the year 2016. Though earlier the respondent workman had worked for some time, but, I have considered the case of the petitioner only for the reason that a person who commits fraud by producing false certificate does not deserve any compassion. Secondly, the respondent-workman admits himself in the reply that Annexure-A which was produced at initial appointment which is genuine and valid. When such being the case, the respondent-workman does not deserve any sympathy. Secondly, the respondent-workman admits himself in the reply that Annexure-A which was produced at initial appointment which is genuine and valid. When such being the case, the respondent-workman does not deserve any sympathy. In that view of the matter, petition is allowed. Award dated 09th August 2012 passed IAA-2/CR/31/2011-12 passed by the First Respondent is set aside. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, Writ Petition No.23884 of 2016 also stands allowed.