Fit case to prosecute: Madras High Court on litigant who failed to disclose on oath that he was an enrolled advocate during labour dispute

The Madras High Court recently took a serious view of a litigant's failure to disclose on oath that he was an enrolled advocate while pursuing a labour dispute in which he had sought reinstatement as an employee of a finance company (M/s The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd v. TS Jaganathan and Anr). .Opining that it appears to be a fit case for prosecution under Section 191(giving false evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Justice S Vaidyanathan directed the litigant to appear in person before the Court on August 31 for a preliminary enquiry under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..The case before the High Court was a writ petition challenging a 2015 ruling of a labour court, whereby the litigant was directed to be reinstated to service and paid 50% back wages from the date of his termination until December 2, 2011, when he enrolled as an advocate. .However, following the employer's challenge to this labour court ruling, the High Court on July 19 held:" ...this Court deprives the entire backwages awarded by the Labour Court on the sole reasoning that, the 1st Respondent, who is an Advocate, has approached this Court with unclean hands by filing a false statement. In the considered opinion of this Court, this is a fit case to prosecute the 1st Respondent for making a false statement on oath, attracting the provisions of Section 191 I.P.C. Notice is ordered to the 1st Respondent herein to appear in person before me, on 31.08.2021 for preliminary enquiry under Section 195 r/w 340 Cr.P.C.".The dispute dated back to 1999, when the litigant-employee was divested of his duties on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent from work from December 13, 1997, till he was discharged from service on March 19, 1998. Before the labour court, the employer contended that the litigant-employee was not a "workman.".The labour court, however, opined that the non-employment of the employee was not justified, and ruled in his favour. The High Court, however, was prompted to overturn this verdict in view of the employee's apparent non-disclosure of his enrolment as an advocate. The High Court observed that it was only in the course of eliciting evidence that the litigant's enrolment as an advocate came to light..The Court opined that the employee's failure to disclose his enrolment on oath, coupled with his statement that he was without income since his termination from the finance company, attracted the offence under Section 191 IPC."... it is clear that, the 1st Respondent/employee has not stated that, he has enrolled himself as an Advocate. Documents need to be called for from the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to establish that, the 1st Respondent enrolled himself as an Advocate on 02.12.2011. The 1st Respondent/employee has contended that, pursuant to his termination, he remained unemployed without any source of income. Only in the evidence, it has been elicited that, he has been enrolled as an Advocate. The duty of any litigant is to state the fact and the 1st Respondent/employee should have stated on oath that, he has enrolled himself as an Advocate. Since, he has not stated in the Affidavit, the averment that, he was without employment is a false statement on oath, attracting Section 191 I.P.C," the Court said. .In another interesting feature, the Court's order also disclosed that it had initially only ordered the reduction of back wages payable to the employee from 50% to 25% on July 19. .However, Justice Vaidyanathan revealed that he later came to the conclusion that the employee is not entitled to any relief after going through the records before signing the July 19 order. .The Court proceeded to pass a modified order depriving the litigant-employee of any back wages and directing him to appear for a preliminary enquiry before the Court at the end of this month..Thereafter, a direction was issued to the Registry to list the matter for "preliminary enquiry" before Justice Vaidyanathan on August 31 after getting necessary orders from the Chief Justice.