The case originated from Mahadeo’s dismissal following a fatal bus accident in 1996, which the MSRTC attributed to his negligence. However, during compensation proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), the MSRTC itself argued that the accident was solely due to the other vehicle’s driver, a position that directly contradicted its stance in Mahadeo’s disciplinary hearings. The High Court of Bombay reviewed the earlier dismissal of Mahadeo’s writ petition, finding that the MSRTC had engaged in “suppressioveri” (suppression of truth) and “suggestiofalsi” (false representation) by withholding crucial evidence from the Labour Court. Consequently, the High Court not only set aside the dismissal and the Labour Court’s award but also directed the MSRTC to pay Mahadeo all benefits and emoluments, including back wages, a decision that the Supreme Court largely upheld, though it reduced the back wages to 75%.
(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(oo) – Industrial Dispute – Dismissal – Whether, the Corporation is guilty of suggestio falsi by not disclosing what it had pleaded before the MACT and suppresio veri by suppressing the said award – Held that the Corporation indulged in the misadventure of suggestio falsi and suppresio veri is incontrovertible – Before the Labour Court, the Corporation did not leave any stone unturned to establish that not only was the inquiry conducted against Mahadeo fair, but the conclusion arrived at in course of such inquiry that Mahadeo was guilty of misconduct in rashly and negligently driving the bus of the Corporation leading to loss suffered by it was established upon due consideration of the materials on record – Having regard to the clear and specific stand taken before the MACT in its written statement, the Corporation did make a false representation before the Labour Court amounting to suggestio falsi – Also, having not disclosed before the Labour Court the outcome of the proceedings before the MACT, a fortiori, that it had not been found liable to pay any compensation to the passengers who either died and were injured based on what the version in the written statement was and the argument advanced on its behalf to absolve itself of any liability, the Corporation is also guilty of suppresio veri – Issue answered in the affirmative.
(Para 24, 25 and 33)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 114; Order 47 Rule 1 – Constitution of India, Article 226/227 – Review – Validity of – Whether, on facts and in the circumstances, the single judge was justified in exercising review jurisdiction? – Section 114 read with Order 47, CPC does permit the court to look into any document, having a bearing on the lis decided earlier, which was not on record because despite exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced by a party – It would invariably reduce to an examination as to whether the document has such intrinsic worth that if the same had been produced, the outcome could have been different – The written statement of the Corporation filed before the MACT and its award are documents of immense significance which were sufficient to tilt the balance in favour of respondent-‘M’ – The objection of the Corporation to the single judge receiving such document as evidence in course of exercise of review jurisdiction is wholly without any substance and merits outright rejection – Issue answered in favour of respondent.
(Para 35 to 37)
(C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(oo) – Industrial Dispute – Back wages -Whether any interference with the direction for payment of full back wages is called for or not – ‘M’ admitted in his counter affidavit filed before this Court of being engaged in badli work on a daily wage basis – At the same time, it is his specific case that because his service was terminated by the Corporation, he could not find a permanent employment elsewhere – There is no material on record to disbelieve ‘M’ – Since the exact quantum of wages earned by ‘M’ is not available and at the same time it is clear as crystal that the Corporation succeeded in its attempt to get rid of ‘M’ by indulging in the misadventure of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi – Held that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if, in modification of the order of the single judge awarding 100% back wages, ‘M’ is awarded 75% of the back wages from the date of his termination till the date of his superannuation -This would be apart from ‘M; being entitled to full terminal benefits, along with interest @ 6% per annum, had he never been dismissed from service. It is ordered accordingly.
(Para 46 to 49)
(D) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(oo) – Industrial Dispute – Back wages – Held that ordering back wages to be paid to a dismissed employee – upon his dismissal being set aside by a court of law – is not an automatic relief; grant of full or partial back wages has to be preceded by a minor fact-finding exercise by the industrial adjudicator/court seized of the proceedings – Such exercise would require the relevant industrial court or the jurisdictional high court or even this Court to ascertain whether in the interregnum, that is, between the dates of termination and proposed reinstatement, the employee has been gainfully employed – If the employee admits of any gainful employment and gives particulars of the employment together with details of the emoluments received, or, if the employee asserts by pleading that he was not gainfully employed but the employer pleads and proves otherwise to the satisfaction of the court, the quantum of back wages that ought to be awarded on reinstatement is really in the realm of discretion of the court – Such discretion would generally necessitate bearing in mind two circumstances : the first is, the employee, because of the order terminating his service, could not work for a certain period under the employer and secondly, for his bare survival, he might not have had any option but to take up alternative employment.
(Para 43)
(E) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(oo), 17B – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 – Industrial Dispute – Back wages – Gainful employment – Burden of proof – In certain decisions, noticed in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra), it has been opined that whether or not an employee has been gainfully employed is within his special knowledge and having regard to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof is on him – What is required of an employee in such a case? – He has to plead in his statement of claim or any subsequent pleading before the industrial tribunal/labour court that he has not been gainfully employed and that the award of reinstatement may also grant him back wages – If the employee pleads that he was not gainfully employed, he cannot possibly prove such negative fact by adducing positive evidence – In the absence of any contra-material on record, his version has to be accepted – Reference in this connection may be made to Section 17-B of the Act, 1947, which confers a right on an employee to seek “full wages last drawn” from the employer while the challenge of the employer to an award directing reinstatement in a higher court remains pending – There too, what is required is a statement on affidavit regarding non-employment and with such statement on record, the ball is in the court of the employer to satisfy the court why relief under such section ought not to be granted by invoking the proviso to the section – See no reason why a similar approach may not be adopted – After the employee pleads his non-employment and if the employer asserts that the employee was gainfully employed between the dates of termination and proposed reinstatement, the onus of proof would shift to the employer to prove such assertion having regard to the cardinal principle that ‘he who asserts must prove’ – Law, though, seems to be well settled that if the employer by reason of its illegal act deprives any of its employees from discharging his work and the termination is ultimately held to be bad in law, such employee has a legitimate and valid claim to be restored with all that he would have received but for being illegally kept away from work.
(Para 44)
(F) Words and phrases – Latin phrases suggestio falsi and suppresio veri – It embody concepts of unethical conduct of a party having serious consequences in various fields including law – According to Black’s Law Dictionary [11th Edition], suggestio falsi is a false representation or a misleading suggestion while suppresio veri connotes suppression of the truth; an indirect lie, whether by words, conduct, or artifice – It is a type of fraud.
(Para 22 and 23)
Maharashtra State Road Transport V. Mahadeo Krishna Naik
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 218: (DoJ 14-02-2025)
