1. Bus driver dismissed for negligence following fatal accident — Challenge to dismissal — Discovery of contradictory pleadings by employer in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 343
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Mahadeo Krishna Naik – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 13834 of 2024
Decided On : 14-02-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Adv. Ms. Kinjal Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pravin Waman Satale, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Adv. Ms. Kinjal Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pravin Waman Satale, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR
The suppression of crucial evidence by an employer in disciplinary proceedings constitutes fraud, justifying the review of dismissal and entitlement to back wages.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Review of earlier order - The High Court allowed a review petition, setting aside the dismissal of a writ petition and the Labour Court's award against the respondent, directing the Corporation to pay all benefits and back wages. The court found that the Corporation suppressed crucial evidence regarding the negligence of the lorry driver, which was pivotal to Mahadeo's dismissal. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 12, 50)
(B) Review Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the review jurisdiction can be exercised when vital evidence is disregarded, leading to a perverse conclusion. The suppression of evidence by the Corporation constituted suggestio falsi and suppresio veri, impacting the fairness of the inquiry against Mahadeo. (Paras 9, 24, 30)
(C) Back Wages - The court ruled that Mahadeo was entitled to 75% of back wages from the date of termination until superannuation, acknowledging the unfair dismissal and the Corporation's misconduct. (Paras 46, 48)
Facts of the case:
Mahadeo, a bus driver, was dismissed after a fatal accident involving a lorry. The Labour Court upheld the dismissal, but the High Court later found that the Corporation had suppressed evidence of the lorry driver's negligence. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the dismissal was unjustified due to the Corporation's failure to disclose critical evidence, leading to Mahadeo's wrongful termination. (Paras 12, 50)
Issues: The main issues included whether the Corporation suppressed evidence and whether the High Court was justified in exercising review jurisdiction. (Paras 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suppression of evidence by the Corporation constituted a fraud on the court, warranting the review of the earlier dismissal and the award of back wages to Mahadeo. (Paras 24, 30)
Result: The appeal was disposed of with Mahadeo entitled to 75% back wages and terminal benefits.
Judgement Key Points
What is the effect of suppression of crucial evidence by an employer in disciplinary proceedings on review of a dismissal and back wages?
What is the proper exercise of the High Court’s review jurisdiction when vital evidence suppressed before a Labour Court is later brought to light?
What is the appropriate quantum of back wages when reinstatement is ordered following unfair dismissal, considering suppression of evidence and gainful employment in the interim?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- tort
- labour law
Table of Contents
2. Employer contends disciplinary and compensation proceedings differ and review jurisdiction was exceeded — Employee alleges fraud and suppression of material evidence by employer. (Para 14 , 15 )
3. Employer committed fraud by suppressing contradictory sworn pleadings — Doctrine of approbate and reprobate prohibits taking inconsistent stands to mislead the court. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
4. Intentional suppression of material evidence and contradictory pleadings amount to fraud on court — Wrongful termination generally entitles employee to back wages, subject to gainful employment. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 43 , 44 )
5. Appeal disposed of with modification — Employee awarded seventy-five percent back wages from termination to superannuation and full terminal benefits with interest. (Para 46 , 48 , 49 )
6. What constitute suggestio falsi and suppresio veri in judicial proceedings?
Suggestio falsi is a false representation or misleading suggestion, while suppresio veri is the suppression of truth or an indirect lie. Intentionally using these to mislead a court and obtain a favorable order is considered a fraud on the court. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 31 )
7. How does the doctrine of approbate and reprobate apply to contradictory legal stances?
The doctrine prevents a party from accepting and rejecting the same thing or blowing hot and cold. A party cannot take contradictory positions in different proceedings to suit its interests, as this violates the principle of fair play. (Para 30 )
8. Can a court admit new documents during review jurisdiction if they were previously unavailable?
Yes, under Section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC, a court may consider documents that were not on record despite due diligence, provided the documents have intrinsic worth that could alter the outcome. (Para 35 , 36 )
9. What is the general rule regarding the award of back wages in cases of wrongful termination?
Reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. While not automatic, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the employee was gainfully employed to avoid paying full back wages. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 )
10. Who bears the burden of proving gainful employment during the period of wrongful termination?
Once an employee pleads non-employment, the onus shifts to the employer to specifically plead and lead cogent evidence to prove the employee was gainfully employed and receiving similar emoluments. (Para 42 , 44 )
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 particularly the contrary stand taken by the Corporation where the entire blame for the fatal accident was laid on the feet of the lorry driver as well as the award of the MACT dated 9th July, 2004 [the said award], applied for review before the High Court [Review Petition No.18 of 2018]. The review proceeding succeeded before the High Court, triggering this appeal.
IMPUGNED ORDER
7. The single judge, in review, noticed the stand taken by the Corporation before the MACT that the accident was entirely due to the negligence of the lorr
