ORDER : The respondent was appointed as a driver in the petitioner-Corporation on 08.02.1996. When the documents furnished by the respondent more particularly the transfer certificate, when sent for verification was found to be a fake document. The head master of the Government school of which the transfer certificate was purportedly issued, informed that the respondent had never studied in the said school. On 24.07.1999 a show cause notice was issued to the respondent calling upon him to explain why he should not be terminated from service for having furnished false information. After giving a reply to the show cause notice, the respondent submitted one more transfer certificate which was also sent for verification. Once again the head master confirmed that this certificate too was fraudulent and does not pertain to the respondent herein. The head master of the school confirmed that the respondent never studied in their school and the document produced by him was not issued the school. An enquiry in this regard was conducted by the petitioner and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges leveled against the respondent is proved. A second show cause notice was issued and thereafter respondent was dismissed from the service on 19.03.2010. 2. The respondent herein approached the Labour Court, Mysuru calling in question the order of dismissal. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. However, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent on the ground that in the case of another workman by name Srinivas who had produced a fake document, his case was considered leniently by the employer and therefore similar leniency should be shown to the respondent herein. It was also observed by the Labour Court that the respondent herein has put in seventeen years of service and he had a short period for superannuation and therefore, the leniency should be shown to the respondent herein also. The petitioner-Corporation has preferred this petition calling in question the award passed by the Labour Court. 3. Learned counsel, Smt. Renuka H.R., appearing for petitioner-Corporation submits that the observation of the Labour Court that this corporation had shown the leniency in the case of another workman namely Srinivas was in fact not correct. The document i.e., Ex.W1copy of the order of Divisional Controller which was relied upon by the Labour Court was infact pertaining to one G.Nagabhushan. Learned counsel, Smt. Renuka H.R., appearing for petitioner-Corporation submits that the observation of the Labour Court that this corporation had shown the leniency in the case of another workman namely Srinivas was in fact not correct. The document i.e., Ex.W1copy of the order of Divisional Controller which was relied upon by the Labour Court was infact pertaining to one G.Nagabhushan. The said G.Nagabhushan was subjected to enquiry on charges that he had altered the transfer certificate to show that he had passed 7th standard while he had in fact failed in 7th standard. But the educational qualification prescribed for a driver was 4th standard pass and therefore, the said G.Nagabhushan had infact passed 4th standard and on that ground the petitioner-Corporation took a lenient view. It is therefore submitted that the labour Court erred in not noticing this aspect holding that the lenient view shown by the corporation in favour of another workman should also be given to the respondent herein. 4. Learned counsel pointing out to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.V.S.Ram and Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation in Civil Appeal No.412/2015 which was relied upon by the Labour Court and submitted that it has been distinguished by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Hanumantha Vs. the Chief Traffic Manager in W.A.No.6910/2013 which was disposed of on 09.03.2016. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the decision of Constitutional Bench in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, FCI and Others Vs Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others reported in AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3271. Learned counsel submits that the Constitutional Bench has clearly held that “a person having perpetrated a fraud, a claim for protection will not be legally sustainable and a person who had obtained employment by illegitimate means could not continue to enjoy the fruits of the appointment despite the clear finding by the Scrutiny Committee that “he does not even have a shadow of a right even to be considered for appointment”. This was in fact observed by the Apex Court in the case of R.Vishwanatha Pillai Vs State of Kerala and others with Vimal ghosh V Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 105. In another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. This was in fact observed by the Apex Court in the case of R.Vishwanatha Pillai Vs State of Kerala and others with Vimal ghosh V Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 105. In another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 363, it was held that “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 Vs. M.Bhaskaran this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vs. M.Tripura Sundari Devi, observed as under” “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”. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that if the labour Court, even after observing that the charges leveled against the respondent were proved but further proceeded to direct the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the respondent, it is because of the observation of the Apex court in the case of K.V.S.Ram(supra) wherein it was held that, Enquiry Report was submitted after lapse of twelve years and there was a delay of twelve years in conducting and completing the enquiry and there was no plausible explanation for such inordinate delay in completing the enquiry. Having allowed the workman to work for fourteen years, by the time punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the workman, he had attained the age of forty five years. It was held that it is settled proposition of law that while considering the management’s decision to dismiss or terminate the services of a workman, the labour Court can interfere with the decision of the management only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. It was held that it is settled proposition of law that while considering the management’s decision to dismiss or terminate the services of a workman, the labour Court can interfere with the decision of the management only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. In the concluding paragraphs it was also observed that once the labour Court had exercised the discretion judicially, the High Court can interfere with the award, only if it is satisfied that the award of the labour Court is vitiated by any fundamental flaws. It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the labour Court having gone through the records and having found that the respondent should be treated on parity and with the same leniency as shown to the another workman, had come to conclusion that the respondent deserves leniency and therefore ordered reinstatement of the respondent and no fault could be found with the order of the labour Court. 6. Heard the learned counsels and perused the writ papers. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation, the very basis for the labour Court’s reasoning that the petitioner-Corporation had considered the case of another workman leniently, and the very same benefit should be given to respondent herein has been proved to the fallacious. As pointed out by the learned counsel, in the case of another workman namely G.Nagabhushan, the leniency was shown because the tampering of the document did not affect the eligibility of the workman. The educational qualification which was prescribed for a driver was fourth standard pass and the said workman had indeed passed fourth standard. Since the said workman had the necessary educational qualification, the corporation could not dismiss him from service. Therefore, by showing leniency, the petitioner-Corporation had not gone out of the way. The petitioner-Corporation found that the claim of the workman therein was in fact legitimate and as per the prescribed norms and having met the prescription, the appointment of said workman could not have been dispensed with. The observation in K.V.S.Ram (supra) is that the High Court should not interfere with the award unless it is found that the discretion exercised by the labour Court was not judicious. The observation in K.V.S.Ram (supra) is that the High Court should not interfere with the award unless it is found that the discretion exercised by the labour Court was not judicious. In the present case as stated above, the discretion exercised by the labour Court was judicially not tenable. This is the fundamental flaw that could be found in the award of the labour Court. Therefore the benefit that was given to the workman in the case of K.V.S.Ram does not enure to the benefit of respondent herein. 8. Moreover, it is a well settled preposition of law that where an applicant secures an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law as, “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” Borrowed from Lazarus Estates Ltd. Vs. Beasley reported in (1956)1 ALL ER 341 was quoted in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath by Apex Court reported in 1994(1) SCC 1 . In the light of the above, the impugned award dated 16.03.2017 in Ref. No. 42/2013 passed by the labour Court, Mysuru requires to be set aside and it is accordingly quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. No order as to costs.