( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6238 OF 2008 Vijay s/o Narayanrao Sarode, R/o Shahunagar, Near Sagar Garage, Pangri Road, Beed, Dist. Beed. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Beed. 2. The Divisional Traffic Officer, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Beed. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B. Yenge, advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 27th April, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgement and order rendered by learned Member of the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in revision (ULP) No. 32/2008 whereby and whereunder the judgement and order of the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 1/2000 was reversed. ( 2 ) 2. The petitioner was employed as driver of S.T. bus on establishment of the M.S.R.T.C. - respondent No. 1. He was subjected to minor penalties in 1996 and 1998. It was alleged that he picked up a quarrel with one A.B. Gavde. He and one A.V. Bhange allegedly assaulted said Gavde on 18th July, 1999 in the premises of S.T. depot. After departmental enquiry, the petitioner was terminated from service. He challenged the order of termination. The Labour Court held that though the enquiry was fairely conducted, yet, since the original victim of the assault and other witnesses had not been examined, there was no proof to show that the petitioner was in drunken condition and had assaulted Shri Gavde. However, the Labour Court held that there was a quarrel between the petitioner and Shri Gavde as has been proved due to the evidence tendered before the Enquiry Officer. On basis of such finding, the Labour Court held that the penalty of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate with the charge proved. Hence, the complaint was partly allowed with direction that any other penalty may be imposed on the petitioner. The learned Member of the Industrial Court reversed such findings. The learned Member held that the petitioner was convicted by the criminal Court and the order of conviction was confirmed by the appellate ( 3 ) Court and, therefore, it was not necessary to go into the issue regarding the proof in respect of the incident in question and involvement of the petitioner. Hence, the learned Member of the Industrial Court was pleased to set aside the order rendered by the Labour Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is important to notice that the petitioner did not dispute correctness of the validity of the departmental enquiry. He had submitted a purshis (U-21) whereby he declared that he did not wish to challenge fairness of the enquiry. Obviously, first part of the award could not be challenged. It is worthy to be noticed that before the Labour Court, the petitioner made a ordinary statement that he was acquitted from the criminal charges. The learned Judge of the Labour Court observed that the Court had acquitted the petitioner in the criminal case which was initiated on complaint of the victim i.e. Shri Gavde. This observation of the Labour Court was found to be totally incorrect. The learned Member of the Industrial Court held that in criminal case initiated on complaint of Shri Gavde, the petitioner alongwith co-accused Shri Ashok Bhange had been convicted for ( 4 ) offence punishable under section 323 of the I.P. Code vide judgement dated 06-08-2003 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Beed and that judgement was confirmed by the appellate Court. Needless to say, the petitioner’s statement before the Labour Court and observations of the Labour Court in this context are factually incorrect. 5. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer the observations in “Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others” (2010) 2 S.C.C. 114. The Apex Court observed : “2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.” Perusal of the above observations would show that those who rely on unethical means like making a false statement in the ( 5 ) Court proceedings, do not deserve any relief, interim or final, whatsoever it may be. In keeping with this, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief in the present petition. 6. The fact that the petitioner was convicted by the criminal Court was not considered by the Labour Court and, therefore, perhaps there was erroneous finding rendered as regards disproportionality of the quantum of penalty awarded to him. The mistake is rectified by the Industrial Court. Considering the relevant record and the findings of the Industrial Court, there is nothing perverse noticed from the judgement impugned in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp6238-2008