ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed claiming modification of the award dated 21-9-2022 in LCC No.8/2020 passed by the Judge Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal (hereafter 'the Tribunal') inter alia alleging that the Labour Court has not awarded the full amount as claimed by the petitioner under different heads as per the due drawn statement appended with application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter "the ID Act") and as such respondentcorporation be directed to pay the difference amount in overtime allowance, gazetted holidays, weekly rest, DA and interest on unpaid amount of Rs. 12,40,619/- from the date of retirement till realization of the same. 2. Facts of the case that the petitioner submitted an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act in the year 2020 (Ann-1) alleging, inter alia, that he was posted as Conductor in respondent-RSRTC and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-03-2016. Petitioner raised his grievance that even after his superannuation amounts of leave encashment, difference of fixation of 5th and 6th selection scale, arrears of gazetted holiday, amount for overtime duty, weekly rest and interest on the amount due have not been paid. The petitioner enclosed due drawn statement of the amount alleged to be due. 2.1 In reply, respondents clearly denied the amount claimed by petitioner as per his due drawn statement and categorically stated in para No.2 of reply (Ann-2) that amount of gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of 5th and 6th selection scale, arrears for selection scale for 9 and 18 years, gazetted holiday and amount for overtime duty were paid to petitioner between 20-03-2017 to 24-07-2019 along with interest Rs.50,095/- and no amount under such heads are due. Regarding payment for weekly holidays it was stated that the said payment was already stopped vide order dated 14-11-2002; Regarding interest amount it was stated that a Review petition is pending before the High Court and any further payment of interest shall be made as per order passed therein. It was also stated that proceedings for computation for night out and day out allowance are pending. It was also stated that proceedings for computation for night out and day out allowance are pending. 2.2 Considering submissions of both parties the Tribunal came to the conclusion that amounts on several heads such as weekly holidays, overtime, arrears of 5th and 6th selection scale, gazetted holidays were already paid to petitioner, however, partly allowed the application and directed that proceeding for payment of night out and day out allowance be completed expeditiously and due amount be paid to petitioner and amount of interest be paid to petitioner according to the judgment passed by the High Court in the pending Review Petition. 3. Heard. Considered. 4. From perusal of record, it is undisputed fact that gratuity Rs.7,50,000/-, leave encashment Rs.81,250/-, arrear of 5th pay commission Rs.6026/-, arrears of 6th pay commission Rs.80,633/-, arrears of 9 year service Rs. 17,442/-, arrears of 18 year service Rs.70,718/-, amount of gazetted holidays Rs.35,743/-, overtime allowance Rs.4,94,462/- and interest Rs.50,095/- were already paid by respondents to petitioner. After receiving the aforesaid amount, the petitioner submitted the application along with due drawn statement in the year 2020 but nowhere he disclosed the aforesaid amount so received and as such concealed the material fact. The amount claimed by the petitioner to be due as per due drawn statement are not specific. It is apparent that the petitioner did not approach the Labour Court with clean hands and suppressed the amount already received by him before filing the application in question. In rejoinder, filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, he has not disputed the payment made by respondents and only stated that full amount was not paid. However, he did not produce any evidence to prove the amount to be due as claimed in due drawn. In absence of any evidence regarding the amount to be due the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered and the Labour Court has not committed any jurisdictional error or perversity in not accepting the claim of petitioner as per his due drawn statement of Rs. 19,19,562/-. 5. Counsel for petitioner despite repeated queries by the court is not able to justify claim of amount of weekly rest, which has been rejected by the Labour Court placing reliance on the order No.1077 dated 14-11-2002 abolishing the system of keeping weekly rest arrears pending. 19,19,562/-. 5. Counsel for petitioner despite repeated queries by the court is not able to justify claim of amount of weekly rest, which has been rejected by the Labour Court placing reliance on the order No.1077 dated 14-11-2002 abolishing the system of keeping weekly rest arrears pending. Similarly counsel for petitioner is unable to justify the claim of petitioner for differential amount of Rs.12,40,619/ after receiving the amount as disclosed by respondents in para No.2 of the reply. It is apparent that the petitioner did not move application under Section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act with clean hands and he knowingly concealed the payment, received by him under several heads Gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of 5th and 6th pay commission, arrears of 9 and 18 years selection scale, arrears of gazetted holidays, overtime allowance as also the interest on delayed payment prior to filing of the application. The claim of due amount shown in due drawn statement, appear to be arbitrary, in air, without any basis and calculation. No evidence has been produced by petitioner to substantiate his claim. Rather on account of concealment of the amount received and claiming the same amount again in application in issue is misuse of process of law at the behest of petitioner. The application of the petitioner before the Labour Court was not liable to be entertained on this ground alone. 6. The petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of writ Court as he has not approached with clean hands neither before the Labour Court nor before this Court as has been pointed out in foregoing paras that though he received the amount under different heads, as referred above before filing the application, he concealed the same. The Tribunal has already issued direction for completing the proceeding for computation in respect of night out day out allowance and for payment of the interest as per the order of the High Court in pending review petition. 7. Having heard the counsel for petitioner and perusing the material available on record I am of the considered view the Tribunal has already passed the requisite order in the matter of petitioner although he is not entitled to any relief of any kind as has been held by the Apex Court in case of Kishore Samrite Vs. 7. Having heard the counsel for petitioner and perusing the material available on record I am of the considered view the Tribunal has already passed the requisite order in the matter of petitioner although he is not entitled to any relief of any kind as has been held by the Apex Court in case of Kishore Samrite Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2013)2 SCC 398 ] 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. Conduct of petitioner entails on him for misusing the process of Courts, imposition of costs. However, this Court absolves the petitioner from paying any cost as the petition has been heard and dismissed at the stage of admission in limine. 8. Accordingly, there is no force in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.