IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2222 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.04.2009 Mohan Dai Oswal Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation .....PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. O.P.Batra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chibbar Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Phool Chand-respondent No. 3 in person. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure P-1), vide which the reference has been made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court for adjudication on a dispute raised by Phool Chand-respondent No. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the services of the workman-respondent No. 3 have not been terminated as an enquiry is pending against him and, therefore, the reference itself is bad as there is no order of termination. A short reply has been filed by respondent No. 3, according to which, respondent No. 3-workman had preferred CWP No. 11702 of 2008. In the said writ petition, the workman had prayed for writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to join the petitioner on service as he was not being allowed to join his duty. Upon notice having been issued, an objection was taken by the petitioner in the present writ petition (who was CWP No. 2222 of 2009 -2- respondent No. 3 there), that the dispute, as raised by the workman, stands referred to the Labour Court, Ludhiana, by the Appropriate Government and, therefore, the writ petition had been rendered infructuous. On that basis, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2009. The petitioner having taken the shelter of the reference order dated 29.09.2008 (which is under challenge in this case) while contesting the claim of the workman in CWP No. 11702 of 2008, cannot now be allowed to turn around and submit that the said reference is bad. Another aspect, which precludes this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the petitioner-Management has not approached this Court with clean hands as no reference of the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP No. 11702 of 2008 (decided on 29.01.2009) preferred by respondent No. 3-workman has been made in the present writ petition, which was filed on 11.02.2009. A party, which is seeking equitable jurisdiction of this Court should come with clean hands. The facts are sacrosanct and there can be no compromise on this count. It is a different aspect as far as the interpretation or understanding of the facts are concerned but the true factual position needs to be pleaded by the parties, which seeks indulgence of this Court. Having withheld the vital information, which has direct bearing on the present writ petition, the petitioner has lost its credibility and right of adjudication of this matter. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this score only. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE April 16, 2009 pj