The suppression of crucial evidence by an employer in disciplinary proceedings constitutes fraud, justifying the review of dismissal and entitlement to back wages.

JUDGMENT

DIPANKAR DATTA J.

THE APPEAL

1. This appeal by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation [Corporation], by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th November 2018 [impugned order] of Hon’ble S.C. Gupte, J. [single judge] of the High Court of Bombay [High Court] allowing a petition for review [Review Petition No. 18 of 2018] of his earlier order dated 7th February 2017 of dismissal of a writ petition [Writ Petition No. 154 of 2007] instituted by the respondent [Mahadeo]. The single judge not only set aside the order of dismissal of the writ petition passed by him but also set aside the award passed against Mahadeo by the 4 th Labour Court at Mumbai [Labour Court]. While so reviewing, the single judge also directed the Corporation to pay all benefits and emoluments including back wages to Mahadeo.

2. The Corporation has taken exception to the impugned order and contends that the High Court erred in interfering with the decisions of the Writ Court and the Labour Court in its review jurisdiction.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The facts emerging from a perusal of the records would reflect that Mahadeo was appointed by the Corporation as a bus driver on 19th April, 1988. The incident which formed the genesis of the present proceedings occurred on 10th May 1996. A lorry coming from the opposite direction collided at about 22.45 hours with a bus of the Corporation, driven by Mahadeo, resulting in a fatal accident. Two passengers travelling on the bus succumbed to their injuries while several others (around ten) suffered injuries. The monetary loss to the Corporation arising from the accident was calculated at Rs. 45,000/.

4. As a consequence of this accident, disciplinary action followed against Mahadeo. Consequent upon an inquiry, the Divisional Traffic Officer [disciplinary authority] dismissed Mahadeo from service of the Corporation on 27th May, 1997. Aggrieved by his dismissal, Mahadeo preferred a departmental appeal which proved abortive. The Union of which Mahadeo was a member, thereafter, raised an industrial dispute. A reference was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour requiring the Labour Court The Labour Court, upon considering the evidence led and hearing the parties to the dispute, held that the inquiry conducted was fair [vide preliminary award dated 26th May, 2004]; the findings of the inquiry officer were not perverse [vide preliminary award dated 9th December, 2005]; and the punishment inflicted was in proportion to the misconduct proved; therefore Mahadeo was not entitled to reinstatement in service. Resting on these findings, the Labour Court answered the reference by holding that Mahadeo was not entitled to any relief [vide final award dated 16th May, 2006].

5. Crestfallen, Mahadeo invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court by applying under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [W.P. 154 of 2007]. The single judge dismissed the challenge observing that there was enough material before the Labour Court to support the findings of the Inquiry Officer and hence, no interference was warranted.

6. While the reference and then the writ petition was pending, proceedings for compensation had been initiated by the family members of the deceased and injured victims of the road accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [the 1988 Act] before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Mumbai [MACT]. Mahadeo, after becoming aware of the proceedings before the MACT, more parti