Karnataka High Court
The Management Of V.I.S.L., ... vs B. Veeranna Gowda Patil And Another on 27 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2001(88)FLR617], ILR2000KAR4399, 2000(5)KARLJ155, (2001)ILLJ394KANT
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
JUDGMENT G.C. Bharuka, J.
1. This intra-Court appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge who, without disturbing the finding recorded by the Labour Court about the fraud played by the respondent in securing appointment, has directed for his reinstatement with 25% back wages, from the date of his dismissal till the date of the award.
2. The respondent had secured appointment as a casual labourer in the appellant's establishment by representing that he had appeared in the S.S.L.C. examination as a regular candidate in a Government school, and that he had also undergone industrial training course as a welder in D.D.R.R. Polytechnic, Davanagere. Subsequently, it had revealed that the respondent had made a false representation and the certificates produced by him were fabricated. Accordingly, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and the charges having been found to be proved, was dismissed from service. That lead to raising an industrial dispute through a reference made by the State Government under Section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court.
3. The Labour Court, in its award dated 17-5-1990 (Annexure-C), on due consideration of all the material placed before it, came to the categorical finding that the respondent had secured appointment by playing fraud and by producing false certificates. It held the charges levelled against him as proved beyond doubt, and accordingly upheld the penalty of dismissal by rejecting the reference.
4. Though the above findings were not disturbed by the learned Single Judge, but still by merely taking the view that the management had failed to place on record that any minimum qualification was required for the post to which the petitioner-respondent was appointed, directed for reinstatement with back wages as stated above.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents. We find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, it is not at all material as to whether any minimum qualification was required for appointment of the respondent on the post in question. What was more material and clinching for adjudication of the charges and consequential punishment was whether the respondent had secured the appointment on a fraudulent representation and by furnishing forged educational/academic documents.
6. An employee who is found to be guilty of securing appointment by playing fraud on the employer is not entitled to any equitable consideration or relief. This aspect of the matter has been clarified more than once by the Apex Court. In the case of Union of India v M, Bhaskar and Others, it has been held that:
'When once fraud on the employer is detected, appointment orders themselves are tainted and vitiated by fraud and acts of cheating on the part of the employees, appointment orders are liable to be recalled and voidable at the option of the employer concerned. Once fraud of the employees in getting such employment was detected, the employees were proceeded against in a departmental enquiry and called upon to have their say and thereafter have been removed from service. Orders of removal would amount to recalling of fraudulently obtained and erroneous appointment orders which were awarded by the employer after following due process of law and complying with the principles of natural justice. Fraudulently obtained appointment orders would be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer and could be recalled by the employer and in such cases, merely because the employees have continued in service for a number of years on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment orders, cannot create equity in their favour or any estoppel against the employer.
Similar views have been taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of:
(a) Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v A. Unnikrishnan and Another ;
(b) District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another v M. Tripura Sundari Devi;
(c) M. Bhaskar's case, supra;
(d) Union of India v A. Nagamalleshwar Kao; and
(e) United Insurance Company Limited v Rajendra Singh and Others.
7. For the above reasons, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was not correct in interfering with the order of the Labour Court. Accordingly, we set aside that order. The order of the Labour Court is restored.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.