Judgment :- Kurian Joseph , J. A Law graduate in the process of becoming an advocate takes an oath solemnly declaring that "I will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of India of India as by Law established and that I will endeavour to uphold the traditions, Privileges and dignity of the Legal Profession and that I will loyally and faithfully discharge the duties of an Advocate to the best of my knowledge and judgment." Preamable to the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India under Section 49 (1) (c) of the Advocates Act in the matter of standards of Professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by advocates reads as follows:- "An Advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his non-professional capacity may still be improper for an Advocate. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing obligation, an Advocate shall fearlessly uphold the interests of his client, and in his conduct conform to the rules hereinafter mentioned both in letter and in spirit. (emphasis supplied) In Section I of the Rules dealing with the duty to Court at Rule 4 it is provided as follows :- "4. An Advocate shall use is best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the Court, opposing counsel or parties which the Advocate himself ought not to do. An Advocate shall refused to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouth piece of the client, and shall exercise his own judgment in the use of restrained language in correspondence, avoiding scurrilous attacks impleadings and using intemporate language during arguments in Court." (emphasis supplied) Section II dealing with duty to client at Rules 11 and 15 read as follows:- "11, An Advocate is bound to accept any brief in the Courts or Tribunals of before any other authority in or before which he professes to practise at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case. Special circumstances may justify his refusal to accept a particular brief. 15. It shall be the duty of an Advocate fearlessly to uphold the interests of his client by all fair and honourable means without regard to any unpleasant consequences to himself or any other. He shall defend a person accused of a crime regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, bearing in mind that his loyality is to the law which requires that no man should be convicated without adequate evidence." (emphasis supplied) These provisions indicate that in certain matters the duty of an Advocate to Court overrides his duty to his client. As for a client whatever be the means, he only aims at winning the case. But officers of the Court and ministers of justice as they are, advocates have certainly other concerns in the interests of the sacred institution. His duty to his client is to protect the interest of his client only by fair and honourable means and the moment the advocate knows that the relief to his client could be obtained only by unfair and dishonourable means, he should refuse such a brief. Professional propriety demands such a sacrifice. 2. Matters of procedure is normally not in the know of the clients. It is an area where the advocate is expected to have sufficient knowledge and familiarity. Otherwise it would lead to indiscriminate filing of misconceived cases. Such "reckless litigative misadventures (B.N. Srikrishna, C.J. in Writ Appeal No. 188 of 2002 ) are liable to be put a stop to. The advocate has a duty to screen fraudulent and frivolous litigation at the instance of dubious clients. The advocate has first to apply his mind and see whether a case that is proposed to be filed is maintainable. He has to make sure that the case will not be a misuse or abuse of the process of court. It is sad and unfortunate that nowadays no serious attention is shown in these areas. Courts usually dismiss such frivolous cases my imposing costs on the parties. But there is no justice or justification in blaming and burdening the parties if they are otherwise innocent. It is the advocates who display procedural acrobtics resulting in abuse or misuse of the process of the court who are to be made liable in such cases. Courts usually dismiss such frivolous cases my imposing costs on the parties. But there is no justice or justification in blaming and burdening the parties if they are otherwise innocent. It is the advocates who display procedural acrobtics resulting in abuse or misuse of the process of the court who are to be made liable in such cases. It is the advocates who are expected to know the procedures. As ministers of justice and officers of the court they are bound to guard the sacred institution. Hence when the keeper himself plays the poacher, courts should take appropriate steps including awarding of costs on such advocates. 3. With this prologue I shall proceed to deal with the merits of the case. The challenge in both the original petitions is essentially against a reference made by the first respondent for adjudication by the industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode. The issue relates to claim for regularization by certain workers in the Kannur District Co-opertive Bank, Kannur. The workers are arrayed as respondents 7 to 43 in O.P. No.1273 of 2002 and respondents 4 to 8 in O.P. No. 1320 of 2002. The parties are represented by counsel. 4. For easy reference the pleadings are referred to as stated in O.P. No. 1320 of 2002. The history of the case reveals an unfortunate but painfully shocking pricuture of abuse of process of the court. The above mentioned workers were originally engaged in the Bank as provisional employees for a period of 179 days. They had initially approached this court by filing O. P. No. 24138 of 1999 seeking regularization of their service. They had also sought a prayer for continuance in service till they were replaced by regular hands. The following are the prayers:- "1) A declaration to the effect that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service till they are replaced by regular hands selected through public Service Commission. 2) A writ of prohibition restraining the Second respondent from terminating the service of the petitioners until candidates selected through Public Service Commission join duty. 3) To grant cost of this petition. 2) A writ of prohibition restraining the Second respondent from terminating the service of the petitioners until candidates selected through Public Service Commission join duty. 3) To grant cost of this petition. 4) To grant such other reliefs this Honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." Taking note of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1752 of 1996 wherein it has been specifically held that the provisional employees appointed for a period of 179 days are not entitled to continue beyond that period under any circumstances, this court as per Ext.P2 judgment dismissed the writ petition. The matter was taken up in writ appeal and as per Ext. P3 judgment dated 15-10-2001 the matter was disposed of. It was held as follows in the said judgment: "We are of the view that since the appellants/petitioners in the O.P. were appointed only on a provisional basis, they cannot seek direction to the District Co-operative Bank to regularise them in service." While so some of the workers filed a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Kannur in the matter and on the court declining the interim relief, they filed an appeal before the District court and on the interim relief refused there also, the said workers approached this court in C.R.P. No. 1646/2001. However, when the matter came up for hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the matter and as per Ext.P4 order dated 31-10-2001 the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. Suppressing the dismissal of the original petition, the workers in the meanwhile filed O.P. No. 26371/2001 for a direction to the government and the Labour Commissioner for reference of the alleged dispute for adjudication by a competent Labour Court. As per Ext.P5 judgment the said original petition was disposed of at the admission stage directing the Government and the Labour Commissioner to refer for adjudication by an appropriate Labour Court and to maintain status quo till then. Accordingly Ext.P6 order was passed by the Government referring the dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode. The Tribunal registered the dispute as I. D. No.47 of 2001 and passed Ext.P7 interim order directing the management not to terminate the service of the workmen till 30-1-2002. The reference and the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal are under challenge. 5. Having been offered temporary employment as Clerks, Peons etc. The Tribunal registered the dispute as I. D. No.47 of 2001 and passed Ext.P7 interim order directing the management not to terminate the service of the workmen till 30-1-2002. The reference and the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal are under challenge. 5. Having been offered temporary employment as Clerks, Peons etc. and having continued for quite some time the workers have been desperately running from one forum to another knowing well that they will not get regular employment but only with a view to delaying the termination. The process for direct recruitment started as per notification dated 26-10-1999 and the rank list was published on 25-8-2001. The advice memos being issued the candidates were desperately waiting to join service. But the workers have been cleverly manuring things so as to delay the inevitable. What really shocks the judicial conscience is the legal advice that is tended to the poor workers, who are interested only in continuing in service by hook or crook. The counsel had a duty to advise the clients that they cannot abuse the process of the court so as to continue in service. I am constrained to observe that a great disservice has been done to the institution. Ext. P5 is a judgement obtained by suppression of facts. It is sad and strange that the District Bank remind a silent spectator to all these and did not challenge Ext. P5! 6. In this context I may also refer to a decision of the apex court in Taluka Panchayat, Visangar v. Ichaben Shivar Dave. Reported in 1999 SCC (L&S) 1083. The Court has held that once an issue being subject matter of adjudication either in a writ petition or before the Administration Tribunal, a reference thereafter was unnecessary and the award was set aside on that ground. The case of the respondent workers have been considered and concluded by Ext. P3 judgment in writ appeal and thereafter there cannot be any reference. This fact should have been brought at the appropriate stage either before this court or the Government or the Labour Commissioner or the Industrial Tribunal in which case there would not have been any occasion for either a reference or for registering a dispute. P3 judgment in writ appeal and thereafter there cannot be any reference. This fact should have been brought at the appropriate stage either before this court or the Government or the Labour Commissioner or the Industrial Tribunal in which case there would not have been any occasion for either a reference or for registering a dispute. The whole attempt on the part of the party respondents is sheer abuse of the process of the court amounting to interference with the administration of justice and they have to atone for the harm they have done to the institution. 7. I allow the original petitioners. I.D. No.47 of 2001 on the files of the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode shall stand struck off. The party respondents 7 to 43 in O.P. No. 1273 of 2002 and 4 to 8 in O.P. No. 1320 of 2002 (avoiding duplication. If any) shall pay costs to the tune of Rs.2,500/- per worker. The amount shall be paid within a period of one meoth from today to the Kerala High Court Legal services Committee. If the amount is not thus paid the 3rd respondent Bank will recover the amount from the salary of the workers and remit the same to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of one month thereafter. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies will conduct an enquiry as to whether there was any laches on the part of the Bank in the matter and take appropriate action. 8. Having given a prologue I have conclude the judgment with an epilogue. In this case I am not venturing for an adjudication on the liability of the advocates concerned for the cost imposed on the party respondents, since no enquiry as such is possible in these proceedings as they are not before me. I leave it to the good conscience of the advocate concerned. But I certainly make it clear that it will be open to the party respondents to approach the advocates concerned in case the "litigative misadventures" were at the instance of the advocates.