A single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court, led by Justice K.S. Hemalekha, in the case of T.Y. Subramani vs Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C., has ruled that fraudulent practices do not gain legitimacy over time, and equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in such cases. The court emphasized that those seeking equity must act in a fair and equitable manner.
Background:
The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the establishment of the respondent, the Corporation. However, he was charged with producing a fake Transfer Certificate at the time of appointment, and these charges were proven in an inquiry. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged this order under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Labour Court initially directed his reinstatement with full back wages.
The Respondent filed a Writ Petition against the Labour Court’s order, and the High Court set aside the decision, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. Subsequently, the Labour Court confirmed the dismissal order, citing that it was proportionate to the proved misconduct of using a fake Transfer Certificate. The petitioner then filed the present Civil Writ Petition challenging the Disciplinary Authority’s orders.
Court’s Findings:
The court observed that fraudulent practices do not gain legitimacy over time, citing the case of Union of India vs. V.M. Bhaskaran. The Supreme Court held in this case that continued employment based on fraudulently obtained documents does not create equity in favor of the employee.
The court further stated that equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favor of the petitioner, who obtained employment based on false documents. The court emphasized the principle that those seeking equity must come with clean hands. It also cited the case of District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram vs M. Tripura Sundari Devi, where the Supreme Court held that appointing persons with inferior qualifications amounts to a fraud on the public unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications were relaxable.
The court upheld the Labour Court’s decision to dismiss the petitioner’s application under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and declined to interfere with the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
The Civil Writ Petition was dismissed, and the Impugned Order of the Labour Court was confirmed.
Case No.: Civil Writ Petition No. 42748/2014 (L-KSRTC)
Case Name: T.Y. Subramani vs Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C.
Petitioner’s Counsel: Sri R. Soma Sunder Rao, Sri Lakshman Rao, Advocate
Respondent’s Counsel: Smt. H.R. Renuka, Advocate
