JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. The appellant has taken an exception to the order dated 25th October 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant was employed in the establishment of the respondent as a driver. Earlier, a Departmental Enqu iry was initiated and he was removed from the employment on 17th October 1998. The Labour Court passed an order of reinstatement with 50% of back-wages. The order of the Labour Court was modified by this Court by denying the back-wages. 3. The case of the respondent is that while reinstating the appellant, service record of the appellant was examined, it was found that the appellant had produced a Transfer Certificate for securing the job. After making an enquiry, the respondent learnt that the Transfer Certificate was of some other lady. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the respondent calling upon the appellant to show cause. The appellant replied to the said show cause notice. An enquiry was ordered after the reply was verified through the Education Officer. In the enquiry, the stand taken by the appellant was that he had not produced the Transfer Certificate on which reliance was placed in the show cause notice. The Enquiry Officer held that the appellant had committed an offence of producing a false Transfer Certificate. Accordingly, the order of dismissal from service was passed. In the industrial dispute raised by the appellant, the Labour Court interfered and passed an order of reinstatement with consequential benefits. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge proceeded to set aside the order of the Labour Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant did not get any advantage by producing Transfer Certificate of another person, assuming that he had produced it. He submitted that the reply to the show cause notice was sent by an advocate and statements were made therein by the advocate without instructions and therefore, the appellant was not bound by the said statements. He submitted that an affidavit was filed by the appellant before the Enquiry Officer stating that he had not produced the Transfer Certificate and he had produced another Transfer Certificate. He submitted that an affidavit was filed by the appellant before the Enquiry Officer stating that he had not produced the Transfer Certificate and he had produced another Transfer Certificate. He pointed out that the appellant produced the said Transfer Certificate to show that in fact he had not studied at Bengaluru and he had studied at Piriyapattana Government School. The learned counsel submitted that in fact apart from producing the document, the appellant examined two of his classmates. He submitted that no enquiry was made on the basis of the Transfer Certificate produced by the appellant to show that the appellant had studied at Piriyapattana Government School. He submitted that enquiry about the said Transfer Certificate ought to have made. He submitted that the appellant had put in twenty years of service and by the impugned order which is illegal, the appellant will be rendered jobless. 5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is the specific case made out by the respondent in the show cause notice that at the time of securing employment, the appellant had submitted the Transfer Certificate No.66/83-84 with registration No.27/72-73 issued by the Head Master, Government Model Primary Boys School, Maruthi Extension, Bengaluru-21. The allegation is that the said Transfer Certificate was found to be of another person and not the appellant. The appellant replied to the said show cause notice by way of reply dated 26th April 2014. A copy of the reply is annexed as Annexure-G. Firstly, we find that the reply is not issued by the appellant’s advocate and the reply is signed by the appellant himself. On the third page of the reply, the appellant has stated thus: “Secondly, I submit that at the time of selection to the post of a driver, I had submitted a T.C.No.66/83-84 with reg. No.:27/72-73 issued by the Head Master, Government Moddle Primary Boys Schoo, Maruthi Extension, Bangalore-21 wherein I had studied up to 5th Standard. I once again reutterate that I have not submitted any false T.C. and I did not seek appointment by suppressing the true facts.” 6. Thus, the appellant in the reply reiterated that he had produced the said Transfer Certificate No.66/83-84 issued by the Head Master of a School at Bengaluru. In fact, he specifically stated that he had studied up to fifth standard in the said school. Thus, the appellant in the reply reiterated that he had produced the said Transfer Certificate No.66/83-84 issued by the Head Master of a School at Bengaluru. In fact, he specifically stated that he had studied up to fifth standard in the said school. Firstly, the argument that the said reply was issued by his advocate cannot be accepted as the reply was signed and issued not by any advocate, but it is under the signature of the present appellant. We may note here that the stand taken by the appellant before the Labour Court was completely different. Before the Labour Court, the appellant filed an affidavit contending that he has not produced the Transfer Certificate No.66/83-84 and that he had not studied in the school at Bengaluru but he had studied at Piriyapattana Government School. He produced the Transfer Certificate issued by the said school along with study certificate. 7. In the reply to the show cause notice which is given at the earliest point of time and at the earliest opportunity, the appellant in so many words accepted that he studied up to fifth standard in Government Model Primary Boys School at Bengaluru-21. He specifically accepted that he produced the Transfer Certificate No.66/83-84 which was issued by the Head Master of the said school. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has come out with a totally incorrect stand that the reply is issued by his advocate. In fact it is given by him under his own signature. It is in this context that the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the appellant had committed fraud by producing the Transfer Certificate of some other student. 8. The allegation against the appellant was that he misled the employer and committed fraud by producing the Transfer Certificate of some other person. The fact that the said Transfer Certificate of some other person was produced by the appellant has been admitted by him in so many words in his reply. The learned Single Judge while exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has interfered with the award of the Labour Court after recording a finding that the appellant had indulged in fraudulent conduct and therefore, he does not deserve any sympathy. 9. The learned Single Judge while exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has interfered with the award of the Labour Court after recording a finding that the appellant had indulged in fraudulent conduct and therefore, he does not deserve any sympathy. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Division Bench dated 19th November 2009 in the W.A.No.1273/2009 in the case of V. KRISHNA VS., BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION. He submitted that the factual scenario therein was almost identical. He submitted that the Division Bench considered the fact that the employer did not produce the record to show that service record of the employee was bad. The Division Bench considered the fact that the workman was allowed to work for twenty years or more. The said decision is of no assistance to the appellant’s case. In this appeal we are dealing with an order passed by the learned Single Judge who has interfered with the award of the Labour Court on the ground of conduct of the appellant. The learned Single Judge was fully justified in taking that view in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Even assuming that the appellant has produced the document to show that he had studied in some other school and not in the aforesaid school at Bengaluru, that makes the case of the appellant worst. Once it is admitted that the appellant misrepresented the respondent/employer by producing the Transfer Certificate of some other student, which indicates that education was taken in the school at Bengaluru, it is impossible to find a fault with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.