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

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Rs.3,30,940/-, which was withdrawn by the said individual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

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

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.

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.

(2022) 12 SCC 815

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

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

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