ORDER : Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the Award dated 14.03.2005 in Reference Case No. 18 of 1992 whereby the Labour Court has partly answered the reference in favour of the workman and has been ordered for back wages and liberty has been given to the employer to pass a fresh order. 3. From pleadings and arguments, it appears that the workman has been appointed on 01.03.1981 on the post of Mazdoor. Appointment of the workman was in pursuance of a scheme. As per the scheme, a regular employee, who has been rendered 25 years of service, is entitle to get the name of his dependent registered in the Dependent Register maintained by the company for providing employment to the dependent as and when the vacancy arises depending on the seniority of the registered dependent and the total length of the service rendered by the employee concerned. 4. In the present case, the concerned workman got employment as Vishwanath son of Sri Ram Prakash and Son-in-law of Sri Pravesh. Sri Pravesh was a regular employee of the respondent and as a dependent of him, the present workman has been appointed. A complaint has been made by Sri Pravesh himself that the present workman is not his son-in-law, rather he is a different person. Domestic enquiry has been initiated wherein it has been admitted by the workman that he is not Vishwanath Son-in-law of Sri Pravesh, rather his name is Lal Babu. Thus, the concerned workman had obtained employment by impersonation and on this fact, findings has been recorded by the Labour Court, which has been challenged in the present writ petition. Relief has been granted in the following terms: “18. Issue no. (iv) : Discharge letter is invalid, therefore, the workman is entitled to reinstatement. But this is a case of misrepresentation. The charges against the workman has been proved in a validly held Domestic Enquiry. Therefore, it will proper that instead of reinstating the workman, only monetary benefits be given to him. It will be open to the Management to pass appropriate order on the basis of the enquiry report dated 3rd January, 1986. The workman is entitled to all back wages and consequential relief as if he has continued in service.” 5. Therefore, it will proper that instead of reinstating the workman, only monetary benefits be given to him. It will be open to the Management to pass appropriate order on the basis of the enquiry report dated 3rd January, 1986. The workman is entitled to all back wages and consequential relief as if he has continued in service.” 5. Thus, from the Award of the Labour Court, it appears that the concerned workman had obtained employment by misrepresentation, but on the other hand he had been granted entire back wages, which amounts to encourage the fraud. As in the present case, employment has been obtained by the concerned workman by misrepresentation and this fact has been admitted and proved in the departmental proceeding, learned Labour Court has also found that services of the concerned workman has been obtained by misrepresentation and in fact the concerned workman is Lal Babu and not Vishwanath. 6. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the relief granted by the Learned Labour Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, the same is, hereby, quashed. 7. The present writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated hereinabove.