Back
DIPANKAR DATTA, SANDEEP MEHTA
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Mahadeo Krishna Naik – Respondent
| 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
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
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
