Suppression of material facts regarding full and final settlement disentitles petitioner from seeking enhancement of compensation.

The petitioner served as a ‘Tolar’ with the respondent for 29 years until his services were terminated on May 1, 2018

Alleging a violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner initiated conciliation proceedings, which were eventually referred to the Labour Court, Kalol

The Labour Court held the termination illegal for non-compliance with Section 25F but, considering the petitioner's age (56 years), awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹45,000 in lieu of reinstatement

Subsequent to the award, the respondent passed a resolution on April 30, 2024, to pay the awarded amount plus gratuity and provident fund

On May 8, 2024, the petitioner accepted these amounts as full and final settlement without protest

The petitioner then filed this writ petition seeking an enhancement of the compensation amount

Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation after accepting the awarded amount as full and final settlement under the principle of "accord and satisfaction"

Whether the petitioner's suppression of the fact regarding the receipt of payments disentitles him to relief under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court

The court applied the principle of "accord and satisfaction," which precludes a party from pursuing further claims once a settlement has been accepted without protest

It relied on the precedent of the Rajasthan High Court in Aditya Synthetics (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India (1994 I LLN 584), establishing that once employment benefits are accepted through consent or settlement, further claims are not maintainable

the court invoked the Equitable Doctrine of Clean Hands, asserting that suppression of material facts in a writ petition justifies the denial of relief

The court observed that the petitioner failed to disclose a vital procedural history: that he had already accepted the ₹45,000 award along with ₹63,411 in gratuity and ₹87,220 in provident fund prior to filing the petition

The court reasoned that since the petitioner accepted the payments and issued a receipt for "full and final settlement" without recording any protest, he was legally estopped from seeking enhancement

The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is a court of equity; by hiding the settlement, the petitioner violated the duty to plead correct and true facts, thereby abusing the process of law

The court found the petitioner's conduct so egregious that it outweighed the factor of his 29 years of service

The court refused to enhance the compensation and instead imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the petitioner, payable to the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee, for misleading the court

All interim reliefs were vacated