JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. Rule.
2. The bank of Baroda Employees Union (in short referred to as `the Union’) and three of its members, who are also employees of respondent No. 1, have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 25.5.2000, issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, declining to make reference of the alleged industrial dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. The reference under Sections 10 & 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short referred to as the Act) was declined to be made to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court by the Government of India, which was the appropriate Government, on the ground that the fixation/ re-fixation of pay of ex-servicemen employed by public sector banks was governed by the instructions issued by the Government and that the management had taken action as per the understanding arrived at between the Union and the Management before the Regional Commissioner (c) on 4.4.1996. The order of the Central Government dated 25.5.2000, is now challenged by the petitioners by filing the writ petition on the ground that the Union was never a party to the settlement dated 4.4.1996 on the basis of which appropriate Government declined to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court. Paragraph 8 of the writ petition which is relevant for the purposes of this decision may be reproduced as under:-
`PARA -8 That the petitioners felt surprised to receive letter dated 25.5.2000 under the signatures of the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi whereby reference of the industrial dispute raised by petitioner No. 1 union has been declined. The reasons given therein are untenable and extraneous. The following reasons have been mentioned in the letter.
“Fixation, re-fixation of pay of ex-servicemen employed by public sector banks is governed by instructions issued by the Government. The management has taken action as per the understanding arrived at between the union and the management before the Regional Commissioner (c) on 4.4.96.”
The reason on the face of it seems to be strange. A mere understanding is not a settlement as per Industrial Disputes Act. The name of the union and the management is nowhere disclosed. This is not the plea taken by the respondent bank in its counter reply before the Conciliation Officer. Moreover, the impugned circular letter is dated. 7.1.93 and the alleged understanding having taken place on 4.4.96 has no bearing. Petitioner No. 1 union was never a party to that settlement or understanding. It is also not disclosed as to which were those instructions of the Government under which impugned circular dated 7.1.93 was issued. Nothing was produced on record by the respondent bank during the conciliation proceedings. Therefore, the so called reasons mentioned in the impugned order/letter dated 25.5.2000 is absolutely contrary to record, extraneous and untenable. Reference has been refused just in order not to enable the petitioner union to seek appropriate adjudication. Therefore the order/letter dated. 25.5.2000 cannot sustain in law.’
3. The petitioner in the petition has thus taken as specific plea that the union was never a party to the settlement dated 4.4.1996. When the matter came up for hearing on 11.9.2000, it was observed by the Court that learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that there were no instructions issued by the Government as regards the fixation or re- fixation of the pay of ex-servicemen employed by the public sector banks nor there was any understanding arrived at between the Union and the Management before the Regional Labour Commissioner (c) on 4.4.1996, as stated in Annexure `P-3′, i.e. the letter dated 25.5.2000, by which the appropriate Government had declined to make reference of the alleged industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court. After making these observations, the Court issued notice to the respondents to show cause why the petition be not admitted.
4. In its counter affidavit, respondent No. 1 has taken a preliminary objection that the writ petition was an abuse of the process of law inasmuch as the petitioners had not only concealed material facts from the Court but had also tried to mislead the Court by giving distorted version of the facts leading to the filing of the petition. It was stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner Union had stated in the writ petition that it was not a party to the settlement or understanding dated 4.4.1996, whereas not only the proceedings dated 4.4.1996, before the Regional Labour Commissioner (c), New Delhi but even proceedings dated 7.6.1999, of the Assistant Labour Commissioner clearly show that Mr. R.L. Virmani who was the General Secretary of petitioner No. 1 Union and had sworn the affidavit in support of the writ petition, was present during the discussion before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and was agitating the claim of the petitioners 2 to 4 through the said Union before the concerned Labour Authorities. It was, therefore, submitted by the respondent that in view of the false and misleading submissions made by the petitioner, the writ petition was liable to the dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the Court was prima facie satisfied that there was some concealment by the petitioner and the matter was, therefore, listed for final hearing. On 7.4.2003, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit seeking to explain that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to mislead the Court and efforts were made to clarify the position.
6. The present petition is filed by the union and S/Sh. Mahender Singh, Sat Pal Singh and Dharam Singh Daral through Mr. R.L.Virmani, General Secretary of the Union. It appears that even earlier in April 1996, the Union had been espousing the case of petitioners 2 to 4 as well as one Mr. Jai Pal Singh. During these proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, the parties arrived at an understanding and it was accepted by both the parties that the management will comply with the provisions of Section 9(A) of Industrial Disputes Act in the referred four cases of the workmen and restore the old wage structure from the date of issue of notice of change and thereafter effect the change for which the Union will not raise any further dispute in conciliation. This settlement was signed by Mr. R.L. Virmani as General Secretary of the Union. In terms of the settlement, the Management on 13.4.1996, wrote to each of the petitioners 2 to 4 that the Union had taken up their cases before the Regional Labour Commissioner in conciliation raising a dispute that Section 9(A) of the Act had not been complied with. Though, in the opinion of the bank, Section 9(A) was not attracted, however, keeping in view the suggestions of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) it was agreed upon to put the petitioners to notice in terms of Section 9(A) of the Act. The petitioners were, accordingly, put to notice that their salary fixation shall be done in terms of the guidelines of the bank approved by the Banking Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India after compliance of Section 9(A) and its prescribed period. For information of the petitioners, the bank informed them that the guidelines were that while fixing the salary, the special allowance drawn by them on re-employment in the bank as Armed Guard be taken into account. The petitioners were, accordingly, requested to please take notice of the same. It was on receipt of this notice dated 13.4.1996 that the Union sought to raise a dispute by conciliation before the Regional Labour Commissioner (c) which as already mentioned above was declined by the Government to refer to the appropriate Court.
7. The short question involved in the case is whether the petitioner has concealed any material fact from the Court and if so, what is the effect of the same. As already observed above, on 4.4.1996, during the course of conciliation proceedings in the matter of certain disputes raised by the petitioners it was agreed between the parties that the management will comply with the provisions of Section 9(A) in respect of the employees who were before the Regional Labour Commissioner and restore the old wage structure from the date of issue of notice of change and thereafter effect the change for which the Union would not raise any further dispute in conciliation. This understanding is admittedly signed by Mr. Virmani. Not only Mr. Virmani but even the petitioners 2 to 4 whose cases were before the Regional Labour Commissioner were thus aware of the understanding arrived at on 4.4.1996. Notice under Section 9(A) was issued on 13.4.1996, pursuant to this understanding dated 4.4.1996. The averments, therefore, made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that the Union was never a party to the settlement or understanding is clearly belied by the record. There is thus a clear concealment of the said understanding by the petitioners in their writ petition. Even in the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner on 11.9.2000 it was stated that no understanding was arrived at between the Union and the Management before the Labour Commissioner (c) on 4.4.1996. This, in my opinion, was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner Union to over-reach and mislead the Court. Had this statement not been made the Court in all probability might not have issued notice to the respondent. A perusal of the order dated 11.9.2000 shows that notice was issued only when the Court had formed a prima-facie view that the Union was not a party to the understanding dated 4.4.1996. This view was formed on the basis of the false and misleading statement made on behalf of the petitioners. A party who approaches the Court to seek equitable relief must come with clean hands and must disclose all the relevant facts which may result in appreciating the rival contentions of the parties. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath and Others, it was held that the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. “It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.”
8. By making a submission not only to the Court on 11.9.2000, but by also making an averment in the writ petition that the Union was not a party to the understanding arrived at between the parties on 4.4.1996, the petitioner has abused the process of Court calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings and the orderly administration of justice. As held by the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam Versus T.V. Satyapal and another, AIR 1977 SC 2421, the pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this country and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases. ” It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients. And remembering that an advocate is an officer of justice he owes it to society not to collaborate in shady actions. The Bar Council of India, we hope will activate this obligation. We are constrained to make these observations and hope that the cooperation of the Bar will be readily forthcoming to the Bench for spending judicial time on worthwhile disputes and avoiding the distraction of sham litigation sch as the one we are disposing of. Another moral of this unrighteous chain litigation is the gullible grant of ex parte orders tempts gamblers in litigation into easy courts. A judge who succumbs to ex parte pressure in unmerited cases helps devalue the judicial process.”
9. In view of the foregoing, I am clearly of the opinion that an attempt has been made by the petitioners to over reach the Court by making deliberate wrong statement that the Union was not a party to the understanding on 4.4.1996. Though, the attempt of the petitioner may amount to contempt of this Court, however, taking a lenient view of the matter and taking into consideration the fact that the petition has been filed by the workmen, I do not propose to take a very strict view against the petitioners. However, as there has been a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioners to mislead this Court, in my opinion, they are not entitled to any sympathy of the Court nor any relief can be granted to them in the present petition. Petition being an abuse of the process of Court is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-.