The Supreme Court held that MSRTC was guilty of suggestio falsi and suppresio veri by not disclosing its pleadings before the MACT to the Labour Court (Para 24-25).

The High Court was justified in exercising review jurisdiction, as the suppressed evidence was crucial and could have altered the Labour Court’s decision (Para 35-37).

The Court modified the award of back wages, reducing it from 100% to 75%, considering Mahadeo’s engagement in badli work (daily wage work) during the period of termination (Para 46).

Mahadeo was entitled to 75% back wages from the date of termination till superannuation, along with full terminal benefits and interest (Para 48-49).

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India (COI), Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction invoked by the respondent.

2. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 11-A – Discretion of Labour Court in awarding back wages.

3. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 – Compensation claims before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT).

4. Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Order XLVII, Rule 1 – Review jurisdiction exercised by the High Court.

Subjects:
Review jurisdiction – Suppression of evidence – Suggestio falsi – Suppresio veri – Back wages – Reinstatement – Industrial dispute – Motor accident – Labour Court – MACT – Fraud on court – Natural justice – Proportionality of punishment.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation: The case arose from a fatal road accident involving a bus driven by the respondent, Mahadeo Krishna Naik, employed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). The accident led to disciplinary action against Mahadeo, resulting in his dismissal. The respondent challenged the dismissal through various legal forums, culminating in a review petition before the High Court, which was allowed, leading to the present appeal by MSRTC.

2. Who is asking the court and for what remedy? MSRTC challenged the High Court’s review order, which set aside the Labour Court’s award and directed payment of back wages and benefits to Mahadeo.

3. Reason for filing the case: The respondent sought reinstatement and back wages, claiming wrongful dismissal and suppression of evidence by MSRTC.

4. What has already been decided until now? The Labour Court upheld the dismissal, the High Court initially dismissed the writ petition, but on review, set aside the Labour Court’s award and ordered payment of back wages.

Issues:

1. Whether MSRTC was guilty of suggestio falsi (false representation) and suppresio veri (suppression of truth) by not disclosing its pleadings before the MACT to the Labour Court.

2. Whether the High Court was justified in exercising review jurisdiction.

3. Whether the award of full back wages was justified.

4. What would be the appropriate relief for Mahadeo.

Submissions/Arguments:

• MSRTC:
  a. Contended that the High Court erred in interfering with the Labour Court’s decision.
  b. Argued that the MACT proceedings were distinct from disciplinary proceedings.
  c. Claimed that Mahadeo had a blemished service record and should not be awarded full back wages.

• Mahadeo:
  a. Alleged that MSRTC committed fraud by suppressing evidence from the MACT.
  b. Claimed financial hardship due to wrongful dismissal and inability to find permanent employment.
  c. Relied on precedents supporting full back wages for wrongful termination.

Ratio:

1. Suppression of Evidence: A party’s suppression of crucial evidence amounts to fraud on the court and justifies review jurisdiction (Para 24-25).

2. Review Jurisdiction: Courts can review decisions if new evidence, which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, has a significant bearing on the case (Para 35-37).

3. Back Wages: While full back wages are the norm for wrongful termination, courts may reduce the quantum based on the employee’s gainful employment during the period of termination (Para 46).

4. Natural Justice: Employers must act fairly and transparently in disciplinary proceedings, and suppression of evidence undermines the principles of natural justice (Para 29).

Subjects:
#ReviewJurisdiction #SuppressionOfEvidence #BackWages #IndustrialDispute #MotorAccident #LabourLaw #NaturalJustice #FraudOnCourt #SupremeCourtOfIndia #ConstitutionOfIndia #IndustrialDisputesAct #MotorVehiclesAct #CPC #SuggestioFalsi #SuppresioVeri