The State of Mysore Vs. Kores (India) Ltd.

- labour & services. dismissal from service: [subhash b adi, j] articles of charges against the respondent regarding obtaining employment by producing false transfer certificate enquiry report finding of disciplinary authority that the charges is proved order of dismissal-challenge to delay in completing the enquiry proceedings reinstatement without back wages pleaded against held, a person, who practices fraud for achieving his object, cannot perpetuate much less on the ground of delay. even one acquires certain rights, they get vitiated once it is proved that the acquisition by means of fraud. the allegation of fraud having been proved, there is no justification for the labour court to set aside the punishment. further, the gravity of the charge cannot be ignored, unless the workman establishes that the delay has vitally prejudiced his case. just because there is delay, the punishment cannot be altered when the charge of fraud is proved. award was set aside. - the petitions, therefore, fail and are dismissed, but without costs.ordervenkataswami, j.1. these two revision petitions have been preferred by the state and are directed against a common assessee and they relate to two separate assessment years. the respondent is a manufacturer of typewriter ribbons with a branch office at bangalore. during the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, it submitted returns in regard to the sales of such article. the assessee contended that it was liable to pay sales tax as per the general provision under section 5(1) of the mysore sales tax act, 1957, at 2 per cent. of the turnover. the assessing authority sought to levy tax on the basis that the typewriter ribbons were parts of typewriters and as such fell within entry 18 of the second schedule to the act. the sales tax appellate tribunal came to the conclusion that typewriter ribbons were not parts of typewriters falling under entry 18 of the second schedule. 2. the question of law arising for decision is, whether typewriter ribbons fall under entry 18 of the second schedule or under section 5(1) of the act 3. it is contended on behalf of the state by sri p. k. shyamasundar, learned government pleader that a typewriter cannot be operated without a ribbon and as such it should be considered as a part of the typewriter. we are not persuaded to agree with this submission on behalf of the state. 4. whether a typewriter ribbon is a part of a typewriter is to be considered in the light of what is meant by a typewriter in the commercial sense. it is clear from the order of the appellate tribunal itself that a typewriter ribbon is not ordinarily manufactured or supplied by manufactures of typewriters. it is also seen from the tribunal's order that a catalogue and price list issued by a manufacturer of typewriter, namely, j.k. machines limited does not show that the typewriter ribbons are included in the list of spare parts of a typewriter. the mere fact that a machine cannot be used without some other accessory is not by itself decisive of this question......