JUDGMENT This writ application is directed against the Memorandum of Settlement between M/s. Bhartia Electric Steel Co. Ltd. and Their Workmen represented by 1) M/s. Bhartia Employees & Workers Union, 2) M/s. Bhartia Iron and Steel Workers Union and 3) Bhartia Electric Steel Co. Employees Union dated 15.2.1986 with Labour Commissioner, West Bengal, one of its signatories and Settlement dated 15.2.86 of the. Industrial Dispute arrived at in conciliation proceedings with the Labour Commissioner, West Bengal as the Conciliation Officer. 2. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows :- The Writ petitioner, i. e., South Calcutta Engineering Shramik Panchayet (for short Shramik Panchayet hereafter) is a Union of Workmen working in Engineering Establishments in South Calcutta and is affiliated to Hind Mazdoor Kishan Panchayet, M/s. Bhartia Electric Steel Co, Ltd. Respondent No.2 herein is one of the leading engineering concerns of West Bengal and about 1500 workmen were in its employment in its two units-the one is situated at No.8, Anil Moitra Road, Ballygunge and the other is situated at Baruipur, District 24-Parganas (South). There are four Unions of Workmen serving at present under Respondent No.2 in its Ballygunge Factory at 8, Anil Moitra Road. Of these four Unions-one is led by Congress (1), the second is led by the C. P. I, the third by the C. P. I. (M) and the fourth is said to have led by the Shramik Panchayet. Of the total number of workmen employed in the said factory at 8, Anil Moitra Road, its members from the majority at present. Prior to July, 1985 more or less 120 workmen of the said factory were removed from service by the Management of Respondent No.2 on one plea or another and the Management was taking steps to retrench and/or remove from service a further 400 workmen in their two Units, It is claimed and contended by the Shramik Panchayet that none of three Respondent Trade Unions opposed the removal of the aforesaid 120 workmen. Furthermore, the said three Trade Unions were reported to have had an understanding with the management of Respondent No.2 that they would not oppose the removal of further 400 workmen by the Respondent No.2. 3. Furthermore, the said three Trade Unions were reported to have had an understanding with the management of Respondent No.2 that they would not oppose the removal of further 400 workmen by the Respondent No.2. 3. The workmen of the Respondent No.2 engaged at the factory at 8, Anil Moitra Road, Calcutta, after coming to know about the understanding of the three Unions, withdrew their support and relinquished the membership from the Respondent Trade Unions and joined Shramik Panchayet as its members and thus, the Shramik Panchayet represented at the material time the majority of workmen of the said factory. It is also the specific case of the Shramik Panchayet that the management of the Respondent No.2 invited the present of the Shramik Panchayet to meet the President of the Shramik Panchayet on 14th August, 1985, 19th August, 1985 and 4th September, 1985 for the discussion on problems of workmen and it was also alleged that the President of the said Shramik Panchayet attended the meeting on each day and the President was bHnded over a list of 400 names proposed to be removed from service under Respondent No.2. The President of Shramik Panchayet expressed his inability to accept such a large scale of retrenchment of workmen. The petitioner asserted the attempts to bring to the notice of the Respondent No.2 that the majority of the workmen of the Respondent No.2 joined the Shramik Panchayet. Sequel to the refusal of the President of the Shramik Panchayet to agree to the proposal of the management of the Respondent No.2 for effecting retrenchment of 400 workmen, a declaration of lock-out of their Ballygunge factory on and from 7th September, 1985 without the payment of monthly wages of the workmen for the month of August, 1985 due and payable by the 10th September, 1985 were issued. The Shramik Panchayet by a letter dated 21st September, 1985 to the Respondent No.2 refused to very many illegalities committed by the management in regard to the workmen and requested the said Respondent No. 2 to see reason and lift immediately the illegal and unjustified lock-out declared with effect from 7th September, 1985, but in vain. The Shramik Panchayet by a letter dated 21st September, 1985 to the Respondent No.2 refused to very many illegalities committed by the management in regard to the workmen and requested the said Respondent No. 2 to see reason and lift immediately the illegal and unjustified lock-out declared with effect from 7th September, 1985, but in vain. Having received no response from Respondent No. 2 to the letter dated 21st September, 1985, the Shramik Panchayet raised an Industrial dispute by its letter dated 9th September, 1985 by the Respondent No.1 bringing to the notice of the Respondent No.1 the lock-out declared by Respondent No.2 of its factory at 8, Anil Moitra Road. 4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, West Bengal by his letter dated 28th September, 1985 requested the Secretary of the petitioner to send a competent representative on 27th September, 1985 for a separate discussion with the petitioner in the matter and the said requisition was complied with by a Memo dated 3rd October, 1985 the Assistant Labour Commissioner again requested the Secretary of the Shramik Panchayet to send a competent representative for a joint conference with the representative of Respondent No.2 on 5.10.85 at about 2-30 P.M. in the Officer's office. But the dispute was Dot resolved and the Jock-out continued. 5. The President of the Shramik Panchayet sent the letter to the Respondent No.1 dated 14th February, 1986 to the effect the it a dispute was raised by the petitioner on 9.9 85 over the lock-out declared by the Respondent No. 2 in its factory at 8, Anil Moitra Road on 7.9.85. No further notice of any conference was received from Respondent No.1 and that on being informed unofficially that the concerned dispute was being handled by the, Deputy Labour Commissioner the said officer was written to for action, but no reply was received from him too. It was further recorded in the said letter that the Labour Directorate has been holding conference with the management and three other Trade Unions of the workmen, on the issue of Lock-out without informing the Shramik Panchayet which enjoyed the support of overwhelming majority of the workmen and the Union, which raised the dispute over lock-out. It was further recorded in the said letter that the Labour Directorate has been holding conference with the management and three other Trade Unions of the workmen, on the issue of Lock-out without informing the Shramik Panchayet which enjoyed the support of overwhelming majority of the workmen and the Union, which raised the dispute over lock-out. It was further recorded in the said letter that any agreement arrived at and signed between the management and the trade unions, which did not enjoy the confidence of the workmen would be unfair, unjust and unlawful. 6. On 15th February, 1986 the Shramik Panchayet was supplied by its members with a Xerox copy of the agreement dated 15th February, 1986 said to have been signed by the Respondent No.1 and other Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 from which it became manifestly dear that the said agreement was finalised behind back of the Shramik Panchayet although the disputes were raised by the Shramik Panchayet by its letter dated 9th September, 1985 as contained in Annexure 'D' to the writ petition. The President of the Shramik Panchayet long before the signing of the agreement dated 15th February, 1986 wrote the Minister of State for Labour on 1st October, 1985, 16th November, 1985 and 2nd February, 1986 with a request to take up the matter to end the said Lock-out as the Labour Directorate appeared to have been following a police of the drift and there by allowing the lock-out to continue to wear out the workmen financially. Similar letters were sent by the President of the Shramik Panchayet to the Secretary, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal on 1st October, 1985, 16th November, 1985 and 2nd December, 1985, but to no effect. 7. In the background of the facts and circumstances of this case as detailed hereinabove, this writ application was presented before this Court on 22nd July, 1986 and the matter was heard on a number of days. 8. Mr. Kashi Kanta Moitra, the learned Senior Adv. appearing in support of the writ petitioner submitted that the• action of the Respondent in effecting the settlement was wholly illegal, improper and without authority of law. Mr. 8. Mr. Kashi Kanta Moitra, the learned Senior Adv. appearing in support of the writ petitioner submitted that the• action of the Respondent in effecting the settlement was wholly illegal, improper and without authority of law. Mr. Moitra further submitted that the Shramik Panchayet having the support of the majority of the workmen employed and engaged in the Respondent No.2 was duly invited by the Respondent No.2 to commence, continue and conclude the dialogue on the settlement of the dispute. It is also asserted by Mr. Moina that the majority of the workmen being the members of the Shramik Panchayet ought to have been taken into consideration and/or allowed to participate in the conciliation proceedings. The settlement according to Mr. Moitra should not be treated as binding upon the members of the Shramik Panchayet. Mr. Moitra referred to section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is quoted below :- "A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement." 9. According to Mr. Moitra, section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act the settlement in question is not binding upon the employees belonging to Shramik Panchayet. It is also claimed and contended by Mr. Moitra that the Shramik Panchayet having once been allowed to participated at the bipartite sifting, they ought not to have allowed to participate at the time when the settlement was arrived at by and between the parties Mr. Moitra seriously assailed the action of the Respondents in particular the conciliation officer in denying the right of the representation to the Shramik Panchayet at the time of, settlement. 10. Mr. Moitra claimed and contended that section 18, provides a settlement arrived al in the course of consideration proceedings which has become enforceable shall not be binding on the members of the Shramik Panchayet. The whole policy of section 18, according to Mr. Moitra appears to have conferred rights upon these workmen, who do not belong to the other Unions. Mr. Moitra thus highlighted that the provisions of section 18(3) are quite different and deal with different matters. An agreement between the management and a Union binds the management and members of the Union and not other members, belonging to the Shramik Panchayet. It is also contended by Mr. Mr. Moitra thus highlighted that the provisions of section 18(3) are quite different and deal with different matters. An agreement between the management and a Union binds the management and members of the Union and not other members, belonging to the Shramik Panchayet. It is also contended by Mr. Moitra that an implied agreement by acquiescence or by conduct, such as acceptance of a benefit under an agreement to which the worker acquiesced by accepting the benefit not being a party, is outside the purview of the Act and is not binding on such a worker under section 18. Therefore, if 99% of the workers impliedly accepted the agreement by drawing the variable dearness allowance under it, will not put an end to the dispute before the Tribunal. 11. Mr. Moitra further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Tata Chemicals Limited v. The Workmen Represented by Chemicals Kamdar Sangh reported in 1968 (3) SCC 42. 12. Mr. S. R. Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing for the State produced the records of this case. The learned Advocate appearing for the Shramik Panchayet and the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.2 duly inspected the records. After inspection of the records by the Counsel appearing for the parties, Mr. Ghosh submitted that the time when the writ application was moved the Saramik Panchayet has and .had no locus standi to expouse the cause of action of the employees and workers engaged in the Respondent No.2 both at 8. Anil Moitra Road, Calcutta and Baruipur. Mr. Ghosh also submitted that for the sake of argument if the claim of the Shramik Panchayet was accepted, even then, the writ petition suffered from suppression of material facts which may be summarised as follows. 13. On 27th October, 1986, the alleged claim of the Shramik Panchayet was that only 520 members said to have joined the said Siramik Panchayet and that number of 520 members could not be said to have formed the majority of the workers engaged in the Respondent No.2. Mr. 13. On 27th October, 1986, the alleged claim of the Shramik Panchayet was that only 520 members said to have joined the said Siramik Panchayet and that number of 520 members could not be said to have formed the majority of the workers engaged in the Respondent No.2. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that the return in form is required to be submitted under section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and Regulation 18 of the Bengal Trade Unions Regulations Rules, 1927 were not submitted to the Registrar annually by the Shramik Panchayet in violation of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the Bengal Trade Unions Regulations Rules, 1927. It is also claimed and contended by Mr. Ghosh that membership of the Union is governed in terms of clause 4 of the Rules and Constitution of the Shramik Panchayet, which is set out below: "4 Membership: The membership of the Union will be opend to all the workers working in South Calcutta Engineering Industries of the age of 15 years or more. (a) Ordinary; Members : A person working in the Engineering Concern in South Calcutta Region (as per list) will be eligible to be admitted as an ordinary member of the Union on payment on an admission fee of Re. 1.00 and a monthly subscription of Re. 1.00. (b) Honorary Members: Persons of outstanding merit, who have rendered valuable service in furtherence of the objects of the Union may be enrolled by the Executive Committee as Honorary Members of the Union for one year with eligibility for re-enrolment. No admission fee or annual subscription will be payable by Honorary members. Executive Committee of the Union shall not at any time exceed one half of the total number of the member of the Executive Committee." 14. The admission of all members except the Honorary members of the Union shall be by application to and acceptance by the Secretary - or President. The Secretary or President may after consideration sanction or under due course refuse an application for membership. 15. The assertion of Mr. Ghosh made on the basis of the records of the case, merits deeper probe into the matter. There is a complete suppression of the fact that the form 'H' submitted on 18th March 1982 contained various particulars. The annual return for the year ending 21st March, 1982 submitted on 24th March, 1988. 15. The assertion of Mr. Ghosh made on the basis of the records of the case, merits deeper probe into the matter. There is a complete suppression of the fact that the form 'H' submitted on 18th March 1982 contained various particulars. The annual return for the year ending 21st March, 1982 submitted on 24th March, 1988. The relevant particulars as contained in annual return were appended at page 31. No annual return for the year ending 31st December. 1983 has since been filed. Annual return for the year ending 31st December. 1983 and onwards has not been filed in terms of section 28 of the Trade Union Act and Regulations framed thereunder. 16 Mr. Ghosh also referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 6 The said affidavit-in-opposition was affirmed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner Shri "Ajit Roy, Assistant Labour Commissioner. The basis and fundamental objection to the maintainability of the writ application taken in the affidavit-in-opposition are, inter alia, as follows:- The writ petition is not maintainable in law. The Shramik Panchayet has no locus standi So represent the workmen of the Respondent No.2 under the Jaw and therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to move the said petition before this Court. 17. The Rule and Constitution of the Shramik Panchayet do not empower it to represent the workmen of the Respondent No.2 under the law since the Shramik Panchayet is an combination of and can represent only the workmen in the interest of South Calcutta Engineering Industries namely, 1) M/s. Scott & Saxby Ltd. of 1, Taratola Road, Calcutta-53, 2) Marine Engineering of 3/1, B.K. Road, Calcutta-23, 3) Rana Engineering of 1, Ekbalpore, Calcutta-23 and 4) Singh Hindusthan Marine Private Ltd. of 12/5, Momenpur Road. 18. The validity and the legality of the settlement could not be challenged before this Court straightway. The Shramik Panchayet has and had no locus standi to respondent the case of the workmen of the Respondent No.2. 19. Mr. Bholanath Sen, the Senior Advocate duly assisted by Shri Molay Chakrabortty, the learned Advocate, submitted that the writ petition suffered from suppression of material facts, by reason of the fact, the Rule and Constitution of the Shramlk Panchayet do not empower the Shramik Panchayet to represent the workmen of the Respondent No.2. The Shramik Panchayet did nut exhaust the statutory remedies provided for under the law. The Shramik Panchayet did nut exhaust the statutory remedies provided for under the law. In the event, the workmen feel arrived by the settlement arrived at between the company and the workmen, they could have resorted to the remeby as provided for the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Rules framed thereunder. Mr. Sen referred to the several paragraphs of the writ petition; in particular, challenge of the Shramik Panchayet that the 'settlement is nut binding upon the members of the Shramik Panchayet, Mr. Sen also referred to paragraph 21 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The relevant portion of the said paragraph is quoted below :- "I say further that the writ petitioner Union having no competence and/or locus standi and or legal representative character and there being in existence three recognized unions of the Respondent No.2 company and they being the sole collective bargaining agents of the workmen employed by the Respondent No.2 Company and its factory, the Conciliation Officer acted fairly and bona fide in negotiating with the Respondent Unions and such negotiations we're in keeping with the principles laid down for negotiations and settlement of industrial disputes under the Statute. I state and submit before this Hon’ble Court that the writ application as preferred by the writ petitioner does not lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the said applications liable to be rejected." 20. Mr. Sen further submitted that the Shramik Panchayet could have resorted to the provisions under section 36(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was asserted by Mr. Sen that reference under section. 36(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act amounts to re-opening the earlier proceedings or to resuscitate the issues covered by the settlement. 21. Mr. Sen also submitted that in view of the complete absence of locus standi by reason of the disclosure as made by the records of the case, the area of challenge stands narrowed down and the Court would not be required to examine the question of the validity and the legality of the settlement. Mr. Sen submitted that the settlement in question did not require this Court to embark upon the adjudication of the section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The terms of the settlement are binding upon the workmen. It is also claimed by Mr. Mr. Sen submitted that the settlement in question did not require this Court to embark upon the adjudication of the section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The terms of the settlement are binding upon the workmen. It is also claimed by Mr. Sen that under section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the settlement was binding on all the parties, who are employed at the time and the date of settlement. The Shramik Panchayet, according to Mr. Sen, not being a rival union nor having a locus standi to claim benefit under section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In extension of his submission Mr. Sen submitted the facts and circumstances of the present case do not constitute any ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The disputes were raised by the rival unions, Settlement in course of conciliation proceeding was arrived at between the management and the three Unions. Shramik Panchayet could not claim the benefit of section 18(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Mr. Sen also reiterated the preliminary objection as raised in the affidavit-in-opposition that the Shramik Panchayet not having a locus standi, the writ petition cannot be sustained. Mr. Sen also submitted that records produced by Mr. S. R. Ghosh showed that Shramik Panchayet did disclose the fact that they were authorised only to represent the case of four industries as stated hereinbefore. Nondisclosure of the vital and, relevant facts, according to Mr. Sen, constituted a suppression of material facts. 22. Mr. Sen further submitted that the writ petition suffered from suppression of material facts namely the failure on the part of the Shramik Panchayet to file annual Return H in Form in a persistent manner since the years ending 31st March. 1984. Mr. Sen further claimed and contended that the failure on the part of the Shramik Panchayet to submit Returns demonstrated that the total membership of the Shramik Panchayet as regards the Respondent No. 2 were not property presented before the concerned authority. Statement of receipt and expenditure was held back from the authority and the inclusion of the name of the Respondent No.2 not having been effected by amendment there could not be any ground for entertainment of the claim of the Shramik Panchayet. Mr. Sen also submitted that the Shramik Panchayet did not disclose as to how the steps were taken for the amendment of the Rules. Mr. Sen also submitted that the Shramik Panchayet did not disclose as to how the steps were taken for the amendment of the Rules. 23. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the Submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the view that the Court is required to consider the basic and fundamental objection of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 6 and Respondent No.2 to the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds that (a) the Shramik Panchayet has and had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition and (b) the petition suffered from suppression of material facts and misstatement. It is, therefore, necessary for the court to dwell on the basic and fundamental objections for arriving at the conclusionary findings thereon there on. 24. Turning back to the facts of the case and also the respective statement of the Counsel, it is appropriate for the Court to reach the findings as to whether the Shramik Panchayet has legal right to represent the case of the workment engaged in the Respondent No.2, and whether the writ petition suffered from suppression of material facts. It appears this the writ petition did not disclose the basic facts that the name of the Respondent No.2 was not shown in the list which is 3. part of the clause (4) of the Rules and Constitution of the Shramik Panchayet that the claim of workmen employed in the said factory at 2, Anil Moitra Road, Calcutta who joined the Shramik Panchayet from the majority of the workmen was without any foundation. The letter dated 27th October, 1986 disclosed that the number of workers alleged to be the members of the Shramik Panchayet were 520. The Shramik Panchayet did not disclose the number of members of the Shramik Panchayet as regards the Respondent No.2. I am of the view that the non-disclosed of the fact that the Shramik Panchayet did not submit the annual return for the year together would disentitle the Shramik Panchayet to ask for any relief. It amounted to a gross suppression of he material facts. The writ petition, in my view, could not be sustained on the ground of suppression of material facts. 25. It amounted to a gross suppression of he material facts. The writ petition, in my view, could not be sustained on the ground of suppression of material facts. 25. The Shramik Panchayet represented the petition in such a manner and fashion as if the workmen engaged in Respondent No.2 being within the fold of the Shramik Panchayet, the grievance of the workmen engaged in Respondent No.2 could be espoused. The names of the indu3tries are specifically mentioned in the application for registration The workmen of those four industries could at best be the members of the Shramik Panchayet and their cause could also be espoused by the Shramik Panchayet. The name of the Respondent No.2 did not appear in the said application. The Shramik Panchayet has and had no right authority and competence to espouse the case of the workmen engaged in the Respondent No.2. The writ petition as is indicated above suffered from suppression of material facts. The doctrine of suppression veri and suggestic falsi would be applicable in a case of the present nature. The Shramik Panchayet failed to come to this court with clean hands and they deliberately suppressed the material fact. The writ application suffered from incurable defect of suppression of material facts, mis-representation and mis-statement of facts. 26. Reference is aptly made to the following decisions in the case of (2) Tilokchand Motihand v. S.P. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 (3) Stare of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery AIR 1977 SC 781 (4) Charanji Lal v. Financial Commissioner, AIR 1978 P & H 326 (5) Rex v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486 (6) G. A. Pillai v. Government of India, AIR 1970 Kerala 110 (FB) (7) Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Achhru Ram, AIR 1951 Allahabad 746 (FB). It appears to me that there is suppression of facts what were material. It is the duty of the Shramik Panchayet asking for relief to bring to the notice of the court of law, all facts material for the determination of issues involved. It is quite clear that every material facts must be stated in the petition. The facts which have seen the light of the day were well, within the knowledge of the Shramik Panchayet and the said fact goes to the root of the matter. It also appropriate for this court to take note of the fundamental facts. It is quite clear that every material facts must be stated in the petition. The facts which have seen the light of the day were well, within the knowledge of the Shramik Panchayet and the said fact goes to the root of the matter. It also appropriate for this court to take note of the fundamental facts. The Rules and Bye-laws together with the list of industries attached thereto of the Shramik Panchayet does not and did show the name of the Respondent No.2. The membership of the Shramik Panchayet will not be open to workers working in Respondent No. 2 inasmuch as the name of Respondent No.2 did not find place in the list attached to the rules. The claim of the Shramik Panchayet In the absence of the name of Respondent No.2 in the list attached to the Rules of the Constitution was without any foundation. The Shramik Panchayet could represent the workmen engaged in four industries as are stated above. The President by letter dated 27th October, 1986 brought to the notice of the Registrar of Trade Unions the startling facts which are set out below. "We bring to your notice that at the time of registration of General Union of Industries re: Engineering Industry of South Calcutta. We submitted a list showing the names of the Company whose worries were members of the Union at the relevant time. Thereafter workers of various companies, i.e., within the category of engineering industry (Big have priority as they are eligible for becoming the members as per Constitution of the Union itself. The list of Companies are enclosed hereunder for your record and reference. Please put it in the record of registration file for record and to avoid for the complications in the matter. SI. Name of The Company and Address No. of No. Member 1. Messrs Bhartia Electric Steel Co. Ltd. 520 No.9, Anil Moitra Road, Calcutta-19 2. Messrs Bharat Commercial Enterprise 26, 40 Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutfa-7000 12. 3. Messrs Surfa Domestic Appliances 10, 20 N.T.S. Sonai Dingi Para Alipore, Calcutta-700086 4. Messrs Appejoy Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 47, Hide Road, Calcutta-700088 247 5. Messrs Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. Hall & Anderson Building. Park Street. Calcutta-700016. 110 6. Messrs Anuj Corporation, 10. Sona Diogi Road. Calcutta-700088 17 7. Messrs J. J. H. Industries Ltd. 9. Transport Depot Road. Calcutta-700088. 30 8. Messrs Allied Engineers, 55, Bidhan Sarani. Calcutta-700004 127 9. Messrs Appejoy Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 47, Hide Road, Calcutta-700088 247 5. Messrs Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. Hall & Anderson Building. Park Street. Calcutta-700016. 110 6. Messrs Anuj Corporation, 10. Sona Diogi Road. Calcutta-700088 17 7. Messrs J. J. H. Industries Ltd. 9. Transport Depot Road. Calcutta-700088. 30 8. Messrs Allied Engineers, 55, Bidhan Sarani. Calcutta-700004 127 9. S. Chatterjee & Sons (I) (Pvt.) Ltd. 33, Chittaranjan Avenue. Calcutta-700012. 78 27. For the first time Shramik Panchayet recorded inclusion of Respondent No. 2 as One of the industries the workmen of which for the purpose of espousing the grievance of the workmen engaged thereat. The Shramik Panchayet. therefore, was Incompetent to initiate a trade union action on behalf of the worken engaged in Respondent No.2 prior to the said letter dated 27th October, 1986. 28. The said Shramik Panchayet did never bring to the notice of the concerned authorities that the workmen of Respondent No.2 could be represented by the Shramik Panchayet. Prior to 27th October, 1986 no complaint or information was furnished to the Registrar of Trade Unions to the effect that the said Shramik Panchayet duly represented majority of the workmen of the respondent nor was there any information sent to the Registrar of Trade Unions as regards the inclusion of workers in the list of membership in terms of clause 4 of the Rules and Constitution of the Shramik Panchayet. The Shramik Panchayet raised the dispute with the management of Respondent No.2 in the year 1985, but the Registrar of Trade Unions was not informed of the inclusion of workers of Respondent No.2 as members of the Shramik Panchayet till October 27, 1986 when the said inclusion of the Shramik Panchayet was sought to be brought to the knowledge of the Registrar of Trade Unions. There was no application duly supported by a resolution by the members of the Shramik Panchayet for amendment of the Rules and Constitution of the Shrmik Panchayet. Shramik Panchayet did not make any) application before the Registrar of Trade Unions that it was not in a position to file annual return for the period ending 31st Match, 1983 and subsequent Years. No explanation was furnished as to how and why and under what circumstances the annual return for subsequent years was not submitted before the Registrar of Trade Unions. No explanation was furnished as to how and why and under what circumstances the annual return for subsequent years was not submitted before the Registrar of Trade Unions. The Shramik Panchayet did not bring the notice of Registrar of Trade Unions that it could represent the workmen engaged in Respondent No.2. After the filing of the writ application the President of the said Shramik Panchayet with a view to justifying its action in raising dispute with the Respondent No.2 presented the version of the inclusion of the Respondent No.2 in the list of industries without taking any steps for amending the Rules and Constitution. The material facts were thus held back from the Court. The very foundation of the claim of the Shramik Panchayet on the ground that at the time when the writ application was filed the Registrar was not cognizant of the claim of the Shramik Panchayet that the majority of the workmen were within the fold of the said Shramik Panchayet. The observation of Scrutton, L.J. in Rex v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner (Supra), in my view, is very pertinent for the determination of the issues involved in this in this writ application ;- "It has been for many years the rule of the Court and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex-parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the materials facts, not ............the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement." The falsity of fact or misleading statement is a warrant for rejection of the writ application. 29. Since the petitioner cannot succeed on the ground that the Shramik Panchayet has and had no locus standi to present the case to espouse the case of workmen engaged in Respondent No.2 the writ petition, in my view, is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is thus dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.