Back
DIPANKAR DATTA, SANDEEP MEHTA
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Mahadeo Krishna Naik – Respondent
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?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident involving bus and lorry (Para 3) |
| 2. mahadeo's dismissal and appeal (Para 4) |
| 3. writ petition and dismissal (Para 5) |
| 4. compensation proceedings initiated (Para 6) |
| 5. high court's review of evidence (Para 7) |
| 6. suppression of evidence by corporation (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 50 , 51) |
| 7. mahadeo entitled to back wages (Para 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT
THE APPEAL
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.
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
The suppression of crucial evidence by an employer in disciplinary proceedings constitutes fraud, justifying the review of dismissal and entitlement to back wages.
Reinstatement with back wages is the norm in wrongful termination cases, subject to considerations of misconduct and employment status.
The employer bears the burden of proving that the worker was gainfully employed during the dispute period to deny back wages; failure to provide evidence supports the worker's claim to back wages.
Point of law; Suspension of service - workman herein also contributed the events led to his dismissal. Further it could be gathered that the workman herein remained out of service and contributed not....
The burden of proof of the employee's unemployment during the interregnum period lies with the employee, and the initial onus is on the employee to plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed.....
Acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on disciplinary proceedings as standard of proof in both cases are different and proceedings operate in different fields and with different o....
In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with back wages is the normal rule unless the employer proves the employee was gainfully employed during the termination period.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
