Telangana High Court
The Management vs State Of Telangana on 19 July, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 30733 OF 2023
ORDER:
Petitioner's grievance in this Writ Petition is the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III filed a report / certificate dated 21.08.2023 before the Court of XII Additional CMM, City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No. 929 of 2019 which is against the principles of natural justice and illegal.
2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are: petitioner is a voluntary non-profitable organisation registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, established with the object of rendering services to tribal, rural and poorer sections of the society.
It is stated, services of one Sri B. Rajender were terminated by petitioner alleging misconduct, based on the findings of the Committee constituted therefor. Against the termination order dated 01.02.2010, he approached the Court of the Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1988 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad in Case No. 3 of 2010. By order dated 16.09.2013, termination order was set aside, directing petitioner 2 herein to reinstate Rajender into employment with immediate effect and with all consequential benefits like continuity of service, back-wages and all attendant benefits. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner paid the benefits to the tune of Rs.3,30,940/-, which was withdrawn by the said individual before he preferred Appeal but did not turn up for duty, as directed.
While things stood thus, on behalf of Sri Rajender, the 3rd respondent filed Crl.M.P.No. 929 of 2019 in the Court of the XII Additional CMM, City Criminal Courts at Nampally to direct petitioner to comply with the order dated 16.09.2013. Though it is stated that they paid all the benefits pursuant to the said order, the 3rd respondent issued notice based on the calculation memo dated 29.04.2023 and subseuqnetly, filed the impugned report/certificate demanding petitioner to pay Rs.23,94,160/-.
3. On 03.11.2023, while directing the Assistant Government Pleader for Labour to secure instructions, this Court granted interim suspension as prayed for.
4. Thereafter, Sri B. Rajender had taken out I.A.No. 2 of 2023 seeking his impleadment as party respondent and I.A.No. 3 of 2023 to vacate the interim order dated 03.11.2023 3 along with an affidavit. It is stated therein that the proposed respondent is a workman who instituted S.E.No. 3 of 2010 on the file of the Authority under Section 48(1) of the 1988 Act questioning his illegal termination; vide order dated 16.09.2013, S.E. was allowed granting relief of reinstatement, back-wages and other attendant benefits. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed S.A.No. 1 of 2013 on the file of the Appellate Authority under Section 48(2), which was dismissed by order dated 31.12.2014 which prompted petitioner filing Writ Petition No. 30342 of 2015. This Court initially granted interim order dated 18.09.2015 directing petitioner to deposit Rs.8 lacs within twelve weeks. As petitioner had not complied with the said order, the said Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 07.11.2016. Petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No. 750 of 2017 wherein the Division Bench confirmed the order in S.E.No. 3 of 2010 as confirmed in S.A.No. 1 of 2013. Seeking implementation of the order in S.E.No. 3 of 2010, the proposed respondent filed an Application under Section 48(5) of 1988 Act. The said Application was allowed by issuing a recovery certificate. By a common order, dated 21.03.2024, while allowing the implead application, this Court directed that there shall be a direction to petitioner to comply with the order in S.E.No. 3 of 2010 and pay all the amounts within four weeks 4 from that day, as the said proceedings attained finality in Writ Petition No. 30342 of 2015, as confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 750 of 2017; in the event of petitioner failing to pay the same, the interim order granted in this Writ Petition stands automatically vacated.
5. Thereafter, petitioner filed a memo dated 30.04.2024 to the effect that petitioner had already complied with the order in S.ENo. 3 of 2010 and deposited Rs.3,30,940/- before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, thereafter, on 08.08.2015, Rs.3,61,460/- was handed over to the 4th respondent vide cheque No. 913780 dated 08.05.2015.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner Dr.M.P.Kashyap submits that though the order dated 16.09.2023 was complied with by his client, the 3rd respondent filed the subject complaint and four years thereafter, filed the impugned certificate claiming amount from petitioner contrary to the order dated 16.09.2023. According to learned counsel, the learned XII Additinal CMM is proceeding in the matter summoning petitioner's head of the organization stating that he would issue warrant in case payment is not made as per the report impugned. 5
7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri V. Hariharan appearing on behalf of Sri Srikanth, learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that petitioner failed to disclose the material facts such as proceedings in SA No. 1 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 30342 of 2015 and Writ Appeal No. 750 of 2017, hence they are guilty of suppression of material facts. According to the learned Senior Counsel, petitioner intentionally avoided impleading the 4th respondent as party to the Writ Petition which fortifies the mala fide intention on their part to obtain the order behind his back. It is submitted that mere filing of a report by the 3rd respondent before the Magistrate cannot be a cause for filing the Writ Petition, hence, it is not maintainable. Petitioner was provided an opportunity by the 3rd respondent to produce documents disputing the calculation memo filed by the 4th respondent pursuant to the order of the primary authority dated 16.09.2023, however, he did not avail the opportunity, hence, the report filed by the 3rd respondent is justified and no interference can be called for as the matter is still sub-judice before the learned Magistrate. Learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority 1. 1 (2022) 12 SCC 815 6
8. Having heard learned counsel on either side and having perused the material on record, it is discernible that petitioner did not make a whisper of the proceedings in S.A.No. 1 of 2010, S.E.No. 3 of 2013 or the factum of filing Writ Petition No. 30342 of 2015 and Writ Appeal No. 750 of 2017 which culminated in adverse order being passed against them. They did not even aver the reason why the 4th respondent was not impeladed when the proceedings challenged in this Writ Petition concern his termination and the benefits to be paid to him.
9. Rule 5(a) of the Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977 states that 'every affidavit shall be drawn up in the first person and shall set forth succinctly and in chronological order all the relevant facts and the grounds for the relief sought. The statement of facts shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs, each paragraph being confined as nearly as may be to a distinct portion of the subject'.
10. To the naked eye, the affidavit does not disclose the material facts, narrated supra. For the first time, all these facts were brought to the notice of this Court in the affidavit filed by the now impleaded 4th respondent which demonstrates the mala fide intention on the part of writ petitioner. Petitioner filed the 7 memo dated 30.04.2024, even therein, they are not specific as to what prevented them from narrating the material facts.
11. In K. Jayaram's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
" 16. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, we are of the view that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations was or is pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.
17. In the instant case, since the appellants have not disclosed the filing of the suit and its dismissal and also the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of the civil court, the appellants have to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts. They have not come to the court with clean hands and they have also abused the process of law. Therefore, they are not entitled for the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief."
12. Concealing / suppression of material facts would amount to abuse of process of law, playing fraud with Court as well as opposite party. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that petitioner 8 approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state the facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he / she withholds some vital / relevant material, in order to gain advantage over the other side, then he / she would be guilty of playing fraud which cannot be countenanced. The parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigation either past or present concerning any part of the subject matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the lis, no legal proceedings or court litigation were or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.
13. In view of the above, since petitioner failed to state the details of all legal proceedings concerning the subject matter, they are not entitled for the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed, however, with exemplary costs for wasting the precious judicial time of this Court.
14. The Writ Petition is dismissed with costs to be quantified at Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lacs fifty thousand only). Petitioner shall deposit the said amount with the 9 Telangana High Court Bar Association, Hyderabad on or before 15th August, 2024 and submit the receipt thereof before this Court. For the said purpose, list on 19.08.2024.
15. Consequently, the miscellaneous Petitions, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 19th July 2024 ksld