1. Whether the petitioner misrepresented facts regarding the withdrawal of claims and whether the writ petition was maintainable against the Labour Court's order under Section 33-C(2). (Para 5 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1230
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B.Majmudar : U.C.Banerjee
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
Versus
Nirmal Sachdeva
Case No. : 49 of 1988
Date of Decision : 12/10/98
S.B.Majmudar : U.C.Banerjee
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
Versus
Nirmal Sachdeva
Case No. : 49 of 1988
Date of Decision : 12/10/98
The equitable maxim "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands" should not be applied literally. Summary dismissal of a petition is unwarranted unless there is reasonable certainty of misrepresentation that goes to the root of the matter, rather than a disputed oral statement.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33-C(2) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition dismissed on ground of "unclean hands" - Allegation of misrepresentation regarding withdrawal of claims - Equitable maxims are not positive laws to be applied literally and to their widest possible amplitude - They lend assistance to the cause of justice and avoid inequities - The maxim "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands" should be introduced with care and caution and not be read with a very wide meaning - Where the issue is essentially "oath against oath" regarding an oral statement not recorded in proceedings, it does not go to the root of the matter nor constitute an abuse of process to warrant summary dismissal of a petition in limine - Applicability of the maxim requires a reasonable amount of certainty about the unclean hands.
(B) Summary dismissal of writ petition - Matter ought to be dealt with on merits when the alleged misrepresentation does not fundamentally mislead the court or affect the core of the dispute.
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed before the High Court challenging an order of the Labour Court passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act regarding claims for overtime and travelling allowances. The High Court dismissed the writ petition summarily, observing that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands and had misrepresented material facts by claiming that certain claims had been withdrawn during arguments, a fact which was not reflected in the Labour Court's records.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegation of misrepresentation was based on an oral statement that was not recorded, making it a case of "oath against oath." Such a situation does not provide the necessary certainty to apply the maxim of "unclean hands" to justify a summary rejection of the petition.
Issues: Whether a writ petition can be dismissed in limine on the ground of "unclean hands" based on a disputed oral statement that was not recorded in the lower court's proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that equitable maxims are not to be treated as positive laws applied literally. The principle of "clean hands" must be applied with caution and requires a reasonable degree of certainty. A discrepancy regarding an unrecorded oral statement does not go to the root of the matter or constitute an abuse of process sufficient to deny a hearing on the merits.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
labour law
-
industrial disputes act
- section 33-c(2)
-
industrial disputes act
-
practice and procedure
-
equity
-
maxims of equity
- clean hands doctrine
-
maxims of equity
-
equity
-
constitutional law
-
writ jurisdiction
- article 226
-
writ jurisdiction
Table of Contents
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
