ORDER : In the instant petition petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) A Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ order or direction to quash the award of the Labour Court, Mysore dated 26.11.2015 in I.D. No.6/2006 (Annexure F) (ii) Such other writ order or direction that this Honb'le Court deems just and expedient in the circumstances of the case. 2. Respondent-Workman was appointed as driver trainee on 13.09.1997. The petitioner noticed that Respondent-workman had furnished fake school leaving certificate/Transfer Certificate bearing No.93/85-86 and admission No.101/68/69 which is relating to one Sri Rajashekar and not of respondent-workman Sri B.M.Sathyanarayana. 3. On the aforesaid issue, petitioner initiated Domestic Enquiry and it was concluded in imposing penalty of removal from the list of trainee driver on 15.12.2005. It was the subject matter in I.D. No.06/2006 before the Labour Court, Mysuru. Initially on the issue relating to compliance of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was decided in favour of respondent-Sri B.M. Sathyanarayana. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of Labour Court, Mysuru, petitioner-Corporation had preferred W.P. No.2180/2013 and it was allowed in part on 18.12.2014 in favour of the petitioner-Corporation and matter was remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. Thus, I.D. No.6/2006 was decided on merit on 26.11.2015 at Annexure-F which is in favour of respondent-workman. Thus, petitioner-Corporation has presented this petition questioning the validity of the award dated 26.11.2015 passed in I.D. No.06/2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that respondent-workman has played fraud while taking the appointment as trainee driver and in denying job to a genuine person. In Domestic Enquiry, School Authorities viz., Head Mistress-Smt. Neelamma entered appearance as a witness and furnished three documents. Those documents are relating to one Sri Rajashekhar and not respondent-workman Sri -B.M.Sathyanarayana. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the Domestic Enquiry and removal of his name from the list of trainee driver on 15.12.2005 is in order. The Labour Court proceeded to set aside the penalty of removal from service while directing the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service with full back wages from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement within one month from the date of award becoming enforceable. The Labour Court proceeded to set aside the penalty of removal from service while directing the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service with full back wages from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement within one month from the date of award becoming enforceable. The reason assigned for setting aside the removal order is with reference to the fact that in identical Domestic Enquiries Ex.W5 to E11, the petitioner-Corporation have imposed lesser punishment than the removal from service. The Labour Court relied on Apex Court decision in the case of KVS Ram V/s Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation reported in 2015 I-LLJ 257. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner -Corporation submitted that a if person playing fraud on an Institution in getting an employment cannot be continued in service since Corporation has no faith in such person when his initial appointment is with reference to fraud. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Apex Court decision in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagadish Balaram Bahira and Ors. reported in AIR 2017 SC 3271 . 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-workman resisted the contention of the petitioner while supporting the award passed by the Labour Court dated 26.11.2015. There is a discrimination and different yardstick has been adopted by the petitioner-Corporation while imposing penalty with reference to identical charges relating to production of fake certificate/documents at the time of appointment. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru. Hence, each of the contentions raised by the petitioner are to be rejected and prays to reject the present petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Undisputed facts are that respondent-workman was appointed as trainee driver on 13.09.1997. Petitioner-Corporation noticed that respondent-workman had obtained appointment and joined service with reference to School Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate bearing No.93/85-86 and Admission No.101/68-69, such certificate is relating to one Sri.Rajashekhar and not relating to respondent-workman Sri.B.M.Sathyanarayana. In a Domestic Enquiry it was proved that the aforesaid documents are belong to one Sri.Rajashekhar and not respondent-workman -Sri B.M.Sathyanarayana. Thus, his services have been removed from the list of trainee driver on 15.12.2005. In a Domestic Enquiry it was proved that the aforesaid documents are belong to one Sri.Rajashekhar and not respondent-workman -Sri B.M.Sathyanarayana. Thus, his services have been removed from the list of trainee driver on 15.12.2005. Even though, Labour Court held that enquiry proceedings and charge leveled against the respondent was proved, however with reference to identical matter wherein, petitioner-Corporation has imposed lesser punishment instead of removal with reference to Exs.W5 to E11 and the same has been taken into consideration with reference to Apex Court decision in the case of K.V.S. Ram cited supra and proceeded to pass award in favour of respondent -workman while setting aide the award of removal dated 15.12.2005. 9. The discrimination in imposing punishment may be appreciated, at the same time, one cannot lose sight that respondent-workman has taken away appointment of genuine person while playing fraud with the Corporation in producing fake transfer certificate bearing No.93/85-86 and Admission bearing No.101/68-69. The aforesaid certificate belongs to one Sri.Rajashekhar and not respondent-workman-B.M.Sathyanarayana. If the respondent joined the petitioner-Corporation for service by means of a fraud, petitioner-Corporation lost its confidence in him. The Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, FCI cited supra held that such of those persons who have obtained appointment by means of a fraud in producing certain records are not entitled to sympathy. In view of the decision in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, FCI cited supra, the decision in the case of K.V.S. Ram referred by the Labour Court has no application. 10. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, FCI cited supra Para Nos.24 and 27 reads as under: 24. XXXXX. The Bench of three Judges also rejected the submission that since the appellant had rendered 27 years of service, the order of dismissal should be substituted with an order of compulsory retirement or removal to protect his pensionary benefits. The Court observed: “19. … The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. The appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eye of the law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flows from a valid and legal appointment. The appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eye of the law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flows from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud.” 27.……….. “18. We may also notice that ordinarily a person, who has obtained appointment on the basis of a false certificate, cannot retain the said benefit. (See Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar [ (2005) 7 SCC 690 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1011] ( AIR 2005 SC 3395 ), Ram Saran v. IG of Police, CRPF [ (2006) 2 SCC 541 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 351] : (2006) 2 Scale 131 ] : ( AIR 2006 SC 3530 ) and Supdt. of Post Offices v. R. Valasina Babu [ (2007) 2 SCC 335 ] :( AIR 2007 SC 1126 ).) In a situation of this nature, whether the Court will refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. of Post Offices v. R. Valasina Babu [ (2007) 2 SCC 335 ] :( AIR 2007 SC 1126 ).) In a situation of this nature, whether the Court will refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This aspect of the matter has been considered recently by this Court in Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra [ (2006) 7 SCC 501 : (2006) 8 Scale 503 : ( AIR 2006 SC 3102 )] .” 11. In view of these facts and circumstances, petitioner-Corporation has made out a case so as to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru in I.D. No.6/2006 on 26.11.2015. Accordingly, I.D. No.6/2006 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru is set aside while confirming the order of removal dated 15.12.2005. Writ petition stands allowed accordingly.