SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 2395

High Court Of Delhi
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
KAMAL SAHDEV - Appellant
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR - Respondents
WP (C) 1478 Of 1997
Decided On : 12/20/2006

Advocates Appeared:
ATUL BATRA, K.K.AGARWAL, PARUL SHARMA, Raj Birbal, V.K.Tandon

Fraud vitiates orders and avoids all judicial acts. An award obtained by concealment of material facts is a nullity and does not bind the parties.

Headnote:

Fraud - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 17-B

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the validity of an award directing reinstatement with full back wages to the respondent. The petitioner alleged that the respondent obtained the award by concealing facts and filing false statements.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent concealed material facts and obtained the award through fraud. The court set aside the award and dismissed the respondent's application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Issues: Concealment of facts, Fraud, Validity of the award, Application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act

Ratio Decidendi: An award obtained by practicing fraud is null and void. Fraud vitiates orders and avoids all judicial acts. A party must come to court with clean hands and disclose all relevant facts.

Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, the award is set aside, and the respondent's application under Section 17-B is dismissed.


SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J, J.


( 1 ) BY this writ petition,the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 23. 8. 1985 in ID No. 92/84 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with full back wages.

( 2 ) IT is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent obtained an ex parte award against the petitioner by concealment of facts and by filing a false and frivolous statement of claim. The respondent obtained the award against bharat Dealers, 60 Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi whereas the respondent had in fact worked with the petitioner's firm National Refrigeration Industries for the period 1981-82 and after voluntarily leaving the petitioner's firm, he sought employment with Punj Sons. He was employed by Punj Sons and he went abroad on an assignment given to him by Punj Sons. He concealed all these facts and obtained award that he be reinstated with full back wages.

( 3 ) IN the counter filed by the respondent, the respondent took the stand that the writ petition was time barred as the award has become enforceable. The petitioner had not challenged the finding of the order dated 14. 11. 95 whereby the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award was dismissed on merits. The petitioner was the owner of Bharat Dealers and the respondent had worked with the petitioner i. e. Bharat Dealers on monthly salary of Rs. 700/- per month. Mr. Kamal Sehdev was the proprietor of M/s Bharat dealers, M/s National Refrigeration Industries and Trikuta Cooling (P) Ltd. All the three firms were having their registered office at 3, Netaji Subash Marg and factory at 60, Okhla Industrial Estate. He denied that he had left the services on his own accord. He submitted that the petitioner had intentionally avoided the appearance before the Labour Court despite receipts of the summons and the labour Court rightly proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and passed the award. He did not respond to Para-13 of the writ petition and did not deny about the specific averments made in para-13 of the writ petition that he had worked with the petitioner only in the year 1981-82 and thereafter he took employment with Punj Sons. His counter is silent about his taking employment with Punj and sons or going abroad.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, when the arguments on the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act were being heard, the petitioner produced the documentary proof about the respondent having gone to Kuwait soon after leaving the services of the petitioner under a contract of service entered into between the respondent and Punj Sons. The petitioner placed on record the contract of service and other documents entered into between the respondent and Punj Sons and also moved an application under Section 340 Cr. P. C. for purgery.

( 5 ) AFTER these documents coming on record, the respondent was asked to produce his passport by this Court and other documents. The respondent then admitted that he had worked in Kuwait from October, 1983 to June, 1984 and filed an affidavit to this effect with photocopy of the passport.

( 6 ) A perusal of the statement of claim filed by the respondent before the labour Court and perusal of the award would show that the respondent had taken the stand before the Labour Court that he was terminated from services on 28. 8. 1983 and despite his best efforts to get job anywhere, he could not get job and remained totally unemployed. On the basis of these averments in the statement of claim and the affidavit to the same effect, filed by the respondent, the Labour Court passed an ex parte award against the petitioner. Now it has been admitted by the respondent, during pendency of these proceedings that he had gone to Kuwait on contract with Punj Sons. He left India on 8th october, 1983.

( 7 ) THE petitioner has placed on record the documents showing that the respondent had applied in Punj and Sons in July, 1983 and he entered in





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top