Parties have a duty to disclose all material facts and documents, and fraud avoids all judicial acts.

S. S. Nijjar, J.

1. The petitioner, who was working as a Salesman with respondent No.2 - Cooperative Society, has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court Annexure P-10 whereby it has been held that the termination of the services of the petitioner is legal and justified. A perusal of the award shows that the learned Labour Court has based its findings of fact on due appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. In coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him, the Labour Court has relied on document Ex. R-2. This document was executed by the petitioner on 4.6.1991 in the form of a letter, which had been written to the Executive Officer of respondent No.2. In this document, the petitioner has categorically admitted that he had committed a number of frauds and misappropriated the amounts, which have been tabulated in the document Ex. R-2. A perusal of the writ petition and the Annexures attached thereto shows that Ex. R-2, which has been referred to by the Labour Court although a vital document for the just decision of the writ petition, has not been placed on the record by the petitioner. The aforesaid document has been attached by the respondent as Annexure R/2 with the written statement. If the aforesaid document had been annexed with the writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that perhaps this Court would not have issued notice of motion at the initial stage. This would have avoided the appearance of the respondents in Court. It is a settled proposition of law that a party seeking equitable relief from the Courts, has a bounded duty to disclose all material facts and documents which may have a bearing on the decision of the case. The party, be it the petition or the respondent, is not allowed to omit certain documents, which if disclosed, would perhaps lead to an unfavorable order being passed against that party. If by not disclosing such a document any favourable order is taken from the Court, the same is liable to be rescinded/vacated on the correct facts being brought to the notice of the Court. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner deliberately withheld document referred to as Ex. R2 in the award, which has been attached as Annexure R/2 with the written statement, for persuading this Court to issue notice of Motion in the present case. Thus the petitioner is not entitled to be heard on merits. The petition is liable to be summarily dismissed. This view that we have taken finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in "s. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L. R. s. V/s. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and Ors. , (1995-1)109 P. L. R.293 (S. C.) wherein it was observed as under: "kuldip SINGH, J.- Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centruries ago, it is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and nonest in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior, it can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are cons