Writ Petition No.7949 of 2012

14th March, 2014

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. D.S. BHARUKA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. A.S. SHELKE

Cases Cited:
Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 398 [Para 8,9]
Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 [Para 8]
Vaijnath Ranba Gavli Vs. Bhanudas Chokoba Rode, 1982 Mh.L.J. 775 [Para 10]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. By an order dated 10/03/2014, the petitioner was directed to file a specific affidavit clearly stating therein whether he intends to deposit the entire amount as ordered by the Compensation Court alongwith interest accrued thereon before this Court. If the petitioner pleads of financial difficulties, he shall submit a list and details of his immovable properties by filing an affidavit to that extent.

3. An affidavit has now been tendered across the bar and a copy thereof is served on the respondent's Advocate. It is an admitted position that the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Court dated 15/12/2009 in W.C.Application No. 19/2001 has not been challenged by the petitioner and has therefore attained finality.

4. Through the affidavit, the petitioner submits as follows :

(a) He is not liable to pay the compensation.

(b) By an agreement at page No.23 of the affidavit, the petitioner has entered into an understanding on 21/06/2000 with the parents and the respondent herein, who is shown to be 18 years of age on 21/06/2000 whereby a statement of the respondent Jawed is recorded that the respondent was never in the employment of the petitioner.

(c) He was never in the employment of the petitioner.

(d) He used to only sleep in the factory as he had no shelter.

(e) Due to his mistake and negligence, he operated a machine and his hand got crushed.

(f) He agreed for the amputation of his hand.

(g) This agreement has been signed after the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Court dtd.15/12/2009.

(h) It is also an admitted position that a recovery proceeding no.57/2010 was filed by the respondent before the Compensation Court on 16/08/2010, which is after signing of this agreement.

(i) The petitioner has no money to pay the compensation amount as ordered by the Compensation Court.

(j) The petitioner has no immovable properties in his name, either business or private properties so as to ensure the payment of the outstanding dues.

5. From the affidavit filed today, it appears that the petitioner has a factory standing in his name at the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition. There is a loan running on the said factory. He has a residential house bearing No.5-10-6, C.T.S.No.19623/16 Dwarkapuri Colony, Aurangabad, which is mortgaged. The factory was closed in March 2002. The petitioner is presently residing in a rented house for the last 10 years.

6. From the impugned order, affidavit-in-reply of the respondent and the petition paper book, it can be seen that the petitioner avoided appearing before the Lower Court until an arrest warrant was issued. He, therefore, rushed to this Court by filing a petition without appearing before the Labour Court. The order dated 10/03/2014 was passed in order to meet the ends of justice and to test the bonafides of the petitioner.

7. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. Multiple, different and shifting stands are being taken by the petitioner before this Court. Without challenging the judgment of The Workmen's Compensation Court, it is boldly stated before this Court that the respondent was never an employee of the petitioner and the petitioner is not liable to pay anything to the respondent. The contents of the alleged agreement signed with the respondent, is an evidence of the extent to which the petitioner has travelled to exploit the Respondent, who has lost his land in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The wordings of the agreement are self explanatory.

8. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P., reported at (2013) 2 SCC 398 and in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114, has laid down the law that no relief can be granted to a litigant, who has not come with clean hands before the Court. In fact, an unfair litigant needs to be deprived of any relief. These words may sound harsh but this Court is compelled to make these observations in light of the conduct of the petitioner and in view of the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. It is held in the Kishore Samrite judgment (supra) as follows :-

"34. It has been consistently stated by this Court that the entire journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties, as truth is the basis of the justice-delivery system.

35. With the passage of time, it has been realised that people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the Courts, irrespective of the consequences but that practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The Court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of parties, to take active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which is the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the Courts to become active seekers of truth. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood, must be appropriately dealt with. The parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs.

36. The party not approaching the Court with clean hands would be liable to be non-suited and such party, who has also succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statements, cannot claim relief, especially under Article 136 of the Constitution. While approaching the court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean hands. Where such statement of facts is based on some information, the source of such information must also be disclosed. Totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the court. A litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts". (Refer : Tilokchand H.B. Motichand v. Munshi, A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, aAbhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India)

37. The person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective that are the equi-fundamentals of judicious litigation. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, which means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another, is the percept for Courts. Wide jurisdiction of the court should not become a source of abuse of the process of law by the disgruntled litigant. Careful exercise is also necessary to ensure that the litigation is genuine, not motivated by extraneous considerations and imposes an obligation upon the litigant to disclose the true facts and approach the court with clean hands.

38. No litigant can play 'hide and seek' with the courts or adopt 'pick and choose'. True facts ought to be disclosed as the Court knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come with candid facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases, the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court. {K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.)"

10. The impugned order is only aimed at ensuring the presence of the petitioner in the recovery proceedings. It has not been passed by way of punishment to put the petitioner in civil prison for non-payment of compensation awarded. Therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vaijnath Ranba Gavli Vs. Bhanudas Chokoba Rode, reported in 1982 Mh.L.J. 775, is misplaced.

11. In the light of the above, I do not find that the petitioner has any bonafide intention of paying the compensation amount with interest to the respondent. This petition at the instance of an unfair petitioner cannot be entertained. The petitioner is at liberty to appear before the Labour Court and undertake to continue to appear on every date before the said Court and contest the proceedings. The proceedings before the Labour Court u/s 31 of the Act cannot be scuttled on account of the unfair tactics played by the petitioner. The respondent is at liberty to adopt such steps before the Labour Court in the Recovery Proceeding No.57/2010 as it may find fit and proper to ensure the recovery of the remaining dues from the petitioner (the respondent having withdrawn Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner in this Court).

12. In these circumstances, the petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty five thousand only). Costs shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from today to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. Needless to state that interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.

13. Rule is discharged.

Ordered accordingly.