1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. By an order dated 10/03/2014, the petitioner was directed to file a specific affidavit clearly stating therein whether he intends to deposit the entire amount as ordered by the Compensation Court alongwith interest accrued thereon before this Court. If the petitioner pleads of financial difficulties, he shall submit a list and details of his immovable properties by filing an affidavit to that extent.

3. An affidavit has now been tendered across the bar and a copy thereof is served on the respondent's Advocate. It is an admitted position that the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Court dated 15/12/2009 in W.C. Application No. 19/2001 has not been challenged by the petitioner and has therefore attained finality.

4. Through the affidavit, the petitioner submits as follows:

(a) He is not liable to pay the compensation.

(b) By an agreement at page No.23 of the affidavit, the petitioner has entered into an understanding on 21/06/2000 with the parents and the respondent herein, who is shown to be 18 years of age on 21/06/2000 whereby a statement of the respondent Jawed is recorded that the respondent was never in the employment of the petitioner.

(c) He was never in the employment of the petitioner.

(d) He used to only sleep in the factory as he had no shelter.

(e) Due to his mistake and negligence, he operated a machine and his hand got crushed.

(f) He agreed for the amputation of his hand.

(g) This agreement has been signed after the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Court dtd.15/12/2009.

(h) It is also an admitted position that a recovery proceeding no.57/2010 was filed by the respondent before the Compensation Court on 16/08/2010, which is after signing of this agreement.

(i) The petitioner has no money to pay the compensation amount as ordered by the Compensation Court.

(j) The petitioner has no immovable properties in his name, either business or private properties so as to ensure the payment of the outstanding dues.

5. From the affidavit filed today, it appears that the petitioner has a factory standing in his name at the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition. There is a loan running on the said factory. He has a residential house bearing No.5106, Dwarkapuri Colony, Aurangabad, which is mortgaged. The factory was closed in March 2002. The petitioner is presently residing in a rented house for the last 10 years.

6. From the impugned order, affidavit-in-reply of the respondent and the petition paper book, it can be seen that the petitioner avoided appearing before the Lower Court until an arrest warrant was issued. He, therefore, rushed to this Court by filing a petition without appearing before the Labour Court. The order dated 10/03/2014 was passed in order to meet the ends of justice and to test the bonafides of the petitioner.

7. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. Multiple, different and shifting stands are being taken by the petitioner before this Court. Without challenging the judgment of The Workmen's Compensation Court, it is boldly stated before this Court that the respondent was never an employee of the petitioner and the petitioner is not liable to pay anything to the respondent. The contents of the alleged agreement signed with the respondent, is an evidence of the extent to which the petitioner has travelled to exploit the Respondent, who has lost his land in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The wordings of the agreement are self explanatory.

8. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P., reported at (2013) 2 SCC 398) and in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114), has laid down the law that no relief can be granted to a litigant, who has not come with clean