JUDGMENT Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against an award of the Labour Court dated 24.5.2003 and the consequential recovery certificates dated 25.2.2005 and 9.11.2005. 3. Before the Court deals with the award, and that too if found necessary, it would be interesting to note how the adage “One in hand is better than two in the bush” has proved to be so true ! 4. The respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 93 of 1999 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Firozabad seeking a mandatory direction to the petitioner to appoint him as Tax Inspector in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Firozabad. The allegations in the suit, as evident from the plaint and also from the judgment, are that, he came to know about a vacancy on the post of Tax Inspector and being a graduate from the Agra University he made an application dated 25.2.1984 to the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer forwarded his application on 7.3.1984 to the District Magistrate for appointment which was followed by a reminder dated 11.3.1984 in pursuance whereof the District Magistrate through his letter dated 30.3.1984 referred the application of the respondent to the Executive Officer with an endorsement to act according to Rules. Despite meeting the Executive Officer and other officials no action was forthcoming, therefore, he submitted an application to the Urban Development Minister on 10.8.1985 through the local member of Parliament which was forwarded to the Director Local Bodies. He also made an application dated 9.4.1986 to the Industries Minister and again another application to Chairman on 5.2.1991 followed by another letter dated 4.1.1994. After an Administrator was appointed he again moved an application for his appointment on 20.8.1998 but no action was taken by any of the officials forcing him to send a notice to the petitioner seeking appointment which evoked a reply on 10.9.1998 that the power of appointment on the post of Tax Inspector rests with the State Government. Nevertheless, he again sent letters dated 14.9.1998 and 15.3.1999 and when no action was taken he filed the aforesaid suit. 5. The petitioner entered appearance pleading that the respondent was never appointed in the Establishment on any post including that of a Tax Inspector which was a centralized post and appointment thereon could only be made by the State Government by publication of advertisement etc. 5. The petitioner entered appearance pleading that the respondent was never appointed in the Establishment on any post including that of a Tax Inspector which was a centralized post and appointment thereon could only be made by the State Government by publication of advertisement etc. after following the Service Rules. After hearing the parties the Civil Judge by a detailed judgment dated 14.2.2000 dismissed the suit on merits. The respondent thereafter challenged it through Writ Petition No. 32781 of 2000 which was dismissed on 2.8.2000 whereafter he filed a Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2001 and the Additional District Judge also dismissed it on merits on 22.3.2002. 6. It is admitted that only thereafter the respondent initiated conciliation proceedings on 27.4.2002 which resulted in a reference which was registered by Labour Court, Agra as Adjudication Case No. 316 of 2006 wherein the impugned award has been rendered. 7. These facts are admitted by the respondent. 8. The reference to the Labour Court was to the following effect : ÞD;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh jke ckcw c?ksy iq= Lo0 Jh feJh jktLo fujh{kd dh lsok;sa fnukad 15&4&88 dks lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugh rks Jfed D;k@ykHk @fjyhQ ikus dk vfèkdkjh gS ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr\Þ 9. From the aforesaid reference order, it is evident that before the Conciliation Officer the respondent had pleaded that he was employed with the petitioner but illegally terminated on 15.4.1988. He has repeated this entirely new case in the written statement before the Labour Court stating that he was appointed as a Tax Inspector on 25.6.1984 and continuously worked therein till 14.4.1988 but he was illegally removed without any notice or retrenchment compensation. 10. It is pleaded in this writ petition that the respondent with the connivance of the employees of the petitioner managed to file a written statement on the basis of forged signatures of the Executive Officer supporting his case and was also able to adduce the evidence of one Arvind Kumar even though the petitioner had no information or notice about the said adjudication case and on that basis he has been able to obtain the award in his favour. It is further pleaded that a recall application moved on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed and the respondent was able to obtain a recovery certificate on the strength of the award for a sum of Rs. It is further pleaded that a recall application moved on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed and the respondent was able to obtain a recovery certificate on the strength of the award for a sum of Rs. 8,00,235/- vide order dated 25.2.2005 passed in proceedings under Section 6-H (1) of the Act and the said amount was recovered by the Collector from the petitioner and paid to the respondent. Not satisfied, he again made a claim for recovery of Rs. 60,220/- and managed to obtain a recovery certificate dated 9.11.2005. However, the present Executive Officer when he joined on 30.5.2006 and when the matter was brought to his notice he perused the entire record when all the aforesaid fraudulent manipulations came to his notice forcing him to file the present writ petition. 11. The crucial question is whether the respondent can be permitted to draw absolutely conflicting pleadings before the civil Court and the labour Court and whether on these facts he is guilty of playing fraud upon the labour Court? 12. As already noted, the facts pleaded by the petitioner before the civil Court, lead to the only inference that he was never appointed as a Tax Inspector in the Nagarpalika Parishad. Once he had failed before the civil Court it was his bounden duty to have disclosed this fact before the labour Court and explained the stand taken by him before the civil Court. By withholding this crucial material fact from the labour Court it cannot but be held that he has played fraud upon the labour Court. The Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others, 2003 (8) SCC 319 has held in paras 17 and 18 of the report as under : “17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. 18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to belief and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.” 13. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.” 13. However, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that no fraud was played upon the petitioner and in fact it had contested the matter before the Labour Court and only thereafter the award was rendered. Reliance is placed upon an order dated 15.7.2004 by which an application moved on behalf of the petitioner for recalling the award on the ground of fraud was rejected. 14. The aforesaid order is on record and it shows that the application was rejected as no evidence was led to prove that the signatures of the then Executive Officer on the written statement was forged and the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden to prove the fraud. Assuming that the finding is correct, but the question still remains as to why the respondent did not disclose the factum of filing the civil suit, the pleadings taken therein and the decision rendered before the labour Court. In fact the Presiding Officer while passing the aforesaid order, took notice of the fact of filing the suit but erroneously held that it had no relevance to the alleged fraud. It is by now well settled as held in Ram Chandra Singh’s case (supra) that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud and the pleadings in the civil suit had necessarily to be disclosed before the Labour Court. The principle of approaching the Court with clean hands places an obligation on the party who approaches it, to refrain from suppressing material facts from it. The Apex Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 has held that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. Examining the pleadings raised by the respondent in the civil suit and before the Labour Court, would show the falsehood stated by him. Had it not been for the honest efforts made by the present Executive Officer, the respondent would have continued to avail the benefit of an order based upon fraud. Even before this Court, no worthwhile explanation is forthcoming with regard to the totally contradictory pleadings raised by the respondent before the two Courts. 15. Had it not been for the honest efforts made by the present Executive Officer, the respondent would have continued to avail the benefit of an order based upon fraud. Even before this Court, no worthwhile explanation is forthcoming with regard to the totally contradictory pleadings raised by the respondent before the two Courts. 15. Lastly it is urged on behalf of the respondent that the suit was barred as the jurisdiction vested only with the Labour Court as it was an Industrial dispute. The very basis of the argument is misconceived. The respondent had filed the suit claiming the relief of a mandatory direction to grant him appointment on the post of Tax Inspector and such a suit could not be said to be barred. The industrial law would apply only when contract of service subsists or had existed, but not in the present case where the claim is for such a contract to be entered. 16. The petitioner, apart from claiming the relief for quashing of the award of the Labour Court and the consequential recovery certificates, has also sought a direction commanding the respondent to return the amount of Rs. 8,00,235/- which was recovered from the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid award. 17. The Court having found that the respondent purposely and with malafide intent based his claim before the Labour Court on falsehood and obtained an award on that basis and has also been unable to explain suppression of material facts from the Labour Court, cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own fraudulent conduct and the Court has no hesitation to hold that such a person cannot be allowed to retain the illegal gains based upon such conduct. 18. No other point has been urged from either side. 19. For the reasons above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the award dated 24.5.2003 and its consequential recovery certificates are hereby quashed. The respondent No. 1 is further directed to return the amount of Rs. 8,00,235/- to the petitioner within a period of two months, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to recover the amount from the respondent as arrears of land revenue through the Collector, Firozabad within a further period of one month. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is also entitled to his costs throughout. ————