provided therein. When the information furnished under Ex.M3 ends with the month of November 1994, Ex.W5 contains one more month i.e. December 1994 with 24 days as alleged working days. It is further seen that it is only a copy of the communication dated 11.05.2007 received under the RTI Act, was marked as Ex.W5. Therefore, both documents should tally with each other. On the other hand, it is apparent that the first page of the said communication dated 11.05.2007 as found in Ex.M3 is totally replaced with the first page found in Ex.W5. Thus it is evident that the petitioner himself prepared the first page in Ex.W5 and filed the same before the Labour Court, as if the said information is furnished by the Special Officer under the RTI Act. This act of the petitioner clearly demonstrates that he wanted to play fraud on the Court by forging the document. The Labour Court, thus, rightly dismissed his claim petition. Therefore, only on the ground of fraud played by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition without going into the other merits of the matter, which the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to raise.
