' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents vide, order dated 26-7-1993. The petitioner being aggrieved filed petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 before the Punjab Labour Court No, VII, Gujranwala on 16-12-1993, who accepted the same vide judgment dated 30-11-1998. The respondents being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, who accepted the same vide judgment dated 27-9-2001 and remanded the case to the respondents to decide the same afresh.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondent No,1 erred in law to remand the case through the impugned judgment dated 27.9-2001 in spite of the fact that sufficient material was available on record. He further submits that the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal decided the case in terms of law laid down by the Superior Courts. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- "Chairman WAPDA Lahore and others v. Ghulbat Khan (1996 SCM R 230).
' Muhammad Habib Khan v. Pakistan Tobbaco Co. And others (PLD 1991 SC 183).
' M.C.B. Karachi and others v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1994 PLC (Lahore 38)."
' He further submits that neither the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner nor dismissal order was passed by the competent authority against the petitioner under the rules and regulations of the respondents, therefore, respondent No,1 erred in law to remand the case to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law which is tantamount to allow the respondents to improve their case.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents after remanding, the case of the petitioner to the respondents-by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide its impugned judgment dated 27-9-2001. He further submits that the petitioner has filed grievance petition in the Court of Punjab Labour Court No,VII, Gujranwala against fresh order of dismissal on 1- 12-2001 and the respondents have also filed written reply of the same. He further submits that the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition before this Court on 26-10-2002 by concealing the aforesaid material facts from this Court.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the petitioner has challenged the vires of impugned judgment of respondent No,1 through this Constitutional petition, whereas the petitioner has filed grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court and his dismissed order passed by the respondents after the impugned judgment. He further submits that the petitioner be allowed to raise all legal and factual objections before the Punjab Labour Court. He further submits that a civil suit for the recovery of amount is pending adjudication before the competent Court between the parties, therefore, the respondents be directed not to recover the said amount from the petitioner till the decision of the said suit.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. It is admitted fact that the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned judgment on 27-9-2001. The respondents dismissed the petitioner from service on 5-11-2001 after remanding the case of the petitioner by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 27-9-2001. The petitioner has filed grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No, VII, Gujranwala on 1-12- 2001, but this fact is not mentioned by the petitioner in the contents of this writ petition. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has filed Constitutional petition before this Court on 26-10-2002 without mentioning that the petitioner has already filed a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court-VII, Gujranwala, meaning thereby the petitioner has concealed the material fact from this Court. It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity must come to the Court with clean hands. The petitioner has concealed the material fact from this Court as mentioned above, therefore, I am riot inclined to exercise my discretion in favor of the petitioner, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- "Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan and others." (1969 SCM R 141).
"Principal, K.E.M. College v. Ghulam Mustafa and others (1983 SCM R 196).
7. However, in the interest of justice and fairplay, the Punjab Labour Court No,VII, Gujranwala is directed to decide the grievance petition of the petitioner as early as possible, keeping in view of special circumstances of this case as the case of the petitioner has been remanded by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal to the respondents in the earlier round of litigation.
' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.