Judgement :

Per UMESH C. BANERJEE, J.

The general principles upon which the Court of Chancery exercised its jurisdiction have been embodied as maxims of equity. These maxims, however, are not to be treated as positive laws to be applied literally and to their widest possible amplitude, since equity does not demand that its suitors shall have to lay themselves blameless. It lends assistance to the cause of justice and avoids inequities. Ethics and good conduct, always subserve the need of justice and equitable maxims denote the same.

Having noticed the broad features of these maxims, be it noted that this civil appeal is directed against an order of summary dismissal of the writ petition by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi against an order of the VIII Labour Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Labour Court Case No. 994 of 1986, dated October 27, 1987 allowing the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has misrepresented material facts to mislead the Court. It is this finding which has been strongly commented upon by the learned senior advocate, Mr. Ashok Grover appearing in support of the appeal. Mr. Grover contended that as a matter of fact there is no factual support for the same and the same cannot but be attributed to be wholly unwarranted. On the second count Mr. Grover contended that in any event, in the contextual facts, question of maintaining an application before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act does not and cannot arise.

In order to appreciate the contentions raised in the matter, it would be convenient at this juncture to advert to certain factual details :

The facts depict that Respondent 1 was appointed by the petitioner on December 21, 1965 as Auxiliary Nurse-Midwife in the pay scale of Rs. 260-350 with usual allowances admissible under the Rules. The factual score reveals that apart from the special pay of Rs. 15 per month, the Auxiliary Nurse-Midwives were allowed rent-free accommodation at the premises of their place of duty and within the area, where emergency duties had to be performed by the staff concerned. The records of the proceedings depict that by a notification dated December 5, 1962, issued by the Delhi Administration being the "appropriate Government" within the meaning of the Minimum Wages Act, the staff of Child Welfare Centre of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had been declared as essentially intermittent.

On the factual score it further appears that on November 5, 1979, the first respondent filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, inter alia, for a claim of Rs. 2,97,425 of which a sum of Rs. 2,85,000 was claimed on account of overtime allowance for the period between December 21, 1966 and September 29, 1976 and a sum of Rs. 9250 on account of difference in salary together with a claim for travelling allowance at the rate of Rs. 45 per month.

In the course of submissions, Mr. Grover further contended that as a matter of fact at the time of final argument before the Labour Court, one Shri C. P. Aggarwal, authorised representative of the first respondent seems to have made a similar statement, as he has been making in various other matters, to the effect that the claim for overtime allowance stands withdrawn by the claimant. The record, however, depicts that no such statement was recorded by the Labour Court. Mr. Grover contended that it is basically by reason therefor that a perusal of the order of the Labour Court itself would indicate that no submissions pertaining to overtime allowance were put forth by and on behalf of the petitioner Corporation.

Incidentally, be it noted that it is on the score as above, that the petitioner moved a review application of the order dated October 27, 1987 which is, however, pending adjudication before the Labour Court.

Be that as it may, the petitioner herein being aggrieved