bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3427 OF 1997 PETITION NO. 3427 OF 1997 PETITION NO. 3427 OF 1997 1.The Dean, Sassoon Sarvopachar Rugnalaya, Pune 2. The State of Maharashtra ... Petitioners v/s 1. Smt.Malan Chhattise & ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.R.Chinchalikar, A.G.P. for the petitioners. Mr.S.M.Dharap for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 26TH AUGUST, 2008 26TH AUGUST, 2008 26TH AUGUST, 2008 ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT: 1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Pune in Reference (IT) No.17 of 1993 on 29.6.1995. 2. The reference was made for adjudication of the dispute claiming permanency and consequential benefits of permanency for 16 workmen mentioned in the schedule to the order of reference. 3. The petitioners contested the reference by filing a written statement contending that they had already 2 granted permanency to 9 workmen. The petitioners also contended that since there was no permanent posts and the hospital was not empowered to create any permanent posts, they could not grant permanency to the workmen without there being any vacancy. 4. The Labour Court has allowed the reference as the workmen have put in 15 years’ of service without being given the benefits of permanency. The Labour Court granted permanency to six workmen i.e. the respondents herein and the petitioners were directed to provide each of them the benefits of permanency with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 1.1.1988 in accordance with the provisions of law. It appears from the award that the petitioners had not led any evidence in support of their claim that there was no vacancy of permanent post and that they had no authority to create posts. 5. After this award was passed on 29.6.1995, the petitioners did not implement the award and, therefore, the workmen filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No.9 of 1996 for implementation of the award. This complaint was filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The complaint has been allowed on 25.2.1997. The Industrial Court declared that the petitioners had committed unfair labour practices under 3 Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The petitioners were directed to implement the award in Reference (IT) No.17 of 1993 and "to provide the benefits to the workmen with all consequential benefits including the basic, dearness allowance, house rent allowance and other allowances with earned leave, sick leave and casual leave from 1.1.1988." This order admittedly has not been challenged by the petitioners and, therefore, has become final. It appears that although the petitioners did appear before the Industrial Court, they have not disclosed anything about this complainant in the present petition. The petitioners, therefore, have suppressed the fact from this Court that Complaint (ULP) No.9 of 1996 had been filed by the Respondents and that it was allowed by the Industrial Court, directing that the award in Reference (IT) No.17 be implemented and granting incidental relief. In fact, the petition had been filed on 27.6.1997 and the order of the Industrial Court in the complaint is dated 25.2.1997. Thus, the petitioners were well aware of this order. They were represented before the Industrial Court and, therefore, ought to have brought this fact to the notice of this Court in their pleadings in the writ petition. The petition has been admitted on 19.8.1997. However, at that stage, no notice was issued to the respondent and therefore, this 4 fact was not brought to the notice of this Court. 6. This conduct of the petitioners is required to be condemned. The first petitioner is a public hospital run by the second petitioner. The second petitioner is the State of Maharashtra. If parties like petitioners suppress information from the Court, it must be deprecated in the strongest possible terms. Public bodies are expected to act honestly and responsibly. Had the petitioners disclosed the true facts it is possible that the workmen would not have had to wait for 11 long years to taste the fruits of success in Reference (IDA) No.17 of 1993. The petitioners have further compounded their reprehensible conduct by annexing their written statement in complaint (ULP) No.9 of 1996 and describing it as their statement of claim in the reference. Thus not only were the petitioners aware of the complaint being filed, but they had opposed the same before the Industrial Court and therefore were aware of the order having been passed by the Industrial Court. The petitioners in this case are guilty of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi. This approach of the petitioners indicates that they have not filed the petition with clean hands and, therefore, deserve no relief in the petition. 5 7. Apart from this, there is no material on record to indicate that the petitioners did not have any permanent vacancies in 1988 for making the respondents permanent. Mere pleadings would not suffice and it would be necessary for the petitioners to demonstrate by way of evidence before the Court that there were in fact no permanent vacancies. 8. The petition is therefore dismissed. Rule discharged with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-.