RAMESH CHAND~A SANKLA ETC. v. VIKRAM CEMENT ETC.

CEMENT ETC. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

89Copy pinpoint89. From the above cases, it clearly transpires that pow- A ers under Articles 226 and 227 are discretionary and equitable and are required to be exercised in the larger interest of jus- tice. While granting relief in favour of the applicant, the Court must take into account balancing interests and equities. It can t mould relief considering the facts of the case. It can pass.an B appropriate order which justic·e m·ay demand and equities may project. As obser\/ed by this Court in Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana, (1980) 1 SCR 1170, Courts of equity should go much further both to give and refuse relief in furtherance of public interest. Granting or withholding of relief may properly c be dependent upon considerations of justice, equity and good conscience.

90Copy pinpoint90. In our considered opinion, taking into account facts and circumstances in their entirety, the order passed and di- rection issued by the Division Bench of the High Court was in furtherance of justice. Not only it has not resulted in miscarriage of justice, in fact it has attempted to put status quo ante by bal- ancing interests and leaving the matter to be decided by a Com- petent Authority in accordance with law.

91Copy pinpoint91. Even otherwise, according to the workmen, they were compelled to accept the amount and they received such amount under coercion and duress. In our considered opinion, they can- not retain the benefit if they want to prosecute Claim Petitions ) instituted by them with the Labour Court. Hence, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as to refund of amount cannot be termed unjust, inequitable or improper. Hence, even if it is held that a 'technical' contention raised by the work- men has some force, this Court which again exercises discre- tionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Con- stitution, will not interfere with a direction which is in consonance with the doctrine of equity. It has been rightly said that a person "who seeks equity must do equity". Here the workmen claim benefits as workmen of the Company, but they do not want to part with the benefit they have received towards retirement and severance of relationship of master and servant. It simply can- H

292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] ,10 S.C.R.

A not be permitted. In our judgment, therefore , the final direction issued by the .Division Bench needs no interference , particu- larly when the Company has also approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution . 92 . For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the order 8 passed by the Div.ision Bench of the High Court deserves to be confirmed and is hereby confirmed. The payment which is re- quired to be made as per the said order should be made by the applicants intending to prosecute their claims before the Labour Court, Mandsour. In view of the fact, however, that the said pe- e riod i~ by now over, ends of justice would be served if w~ ex- tend the time so as to enable tt}e applicants to refund the amount. We, therefore, extend the time up to December 31, 2008 to make such payment. We may, however, clarify that Claim Peti- tions will not be proceeded with till such payment is made. If D the payment is not made within the period stipulated above, the Claim Petitions of those applicants will automatically stand dis- missed. The Labour Court will take up the claim petitions after December 31, 2008.

93Copy pinpoint93. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we ·E have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case one way or the other. And as and when the matter will come up be- fore the labour Court, Mandsour, (if the conditions referred to above have been complied with and refund of payment is made), the Labour Court will consider the Claim Petitions on their own merits without being influenced by any observations made in this judgment. All contentions of all parties including the conten- tion as to maintainability or otherwise of Claim Petitions are kept open . Civil Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs all throughout. S.K.S Appeals disposed of.