MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusMAHADEO KRISHNA NAIK

                  [2025] 3 S.C.R. 100 : 2025 INSC 218

           Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
                                v.
                      Mahadeo Krishna Naik
                      (Civil Appeal No. 13834 of 2024)
                               14 February 2025
             [Dipankar Datta* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the appellant-Corporation is guilty of suggestio falsi by not
       disclosing what it had pleaded before the MACT and suppresio veri
       by suppressing the award; whether the High Court was justified in
       exercising review jurisdiction; and whether the respondent is entitled
       to back wages for the period for which he remained out of service.

                                   Headnotes†
       Service law – Removal from service – Suggestio falsi and
       suppresio veri – Relevance of proceedings of the MACT in
       proceedings before the labour court – Respondent working as
       bus driver with the appellant-Corporation – Lorry coming from
       the opposite direction collided with a bus of the Corporation,
       driven by respondent, resulting in a fatal accident – Disciplinary
       action against respondent and was dismissed from service –
       Dismissal upheld by the Labour court – Writ petition by the
       respondent – Dismissed by the High Court – During pendency,
       proceedings for compensation initiated by victims of the
       accident before the MACT wherein Corporation took a contrary
       stand that the lorry driver was responsible for the accident
       and the tribunal awarded compensation – On basis thereof, the
       respondent applied for review before the High Court – Review
       proceeding allowed and directed payment of back wages to
       the respondent – Correctness:
       Held: Corporation indulged in the misadventure of suggestio falsi
       and suppressio veri – Before the Labour Court, the Corporation
       established that inquiry conducted against the respondent, was fair,
       and the conclusion was arrived at upon due consideration of the
       materials on record – Having regard to the clear and specific stand


* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                              101

           Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                       Mahadeo Krishna Naik

     taken before the MACT in its written statement, the Corporation did
     make a false representation before the Labour Court amounting
     to suggestio falsi – Having not disclosed before the Labour
     Court the outcome of the proceedings before the MACT, the
     Corporation also guilty of suppresio veri – Relevance of the MACT
     judgment and its probative value cannot be gainsaid – In industrial
     adjudication, principles of natural justice have to be complied
     with – Corporation has been far from fair in its dealings with the
     respondent – Corporation did not deliberately refer to the award of
     the MACT at two different tiers, and thereby actively suppressed
     relevant material from court of law – Contradictory nature of the
     stances taken by Corporation, reeks of the Corporation trying
     to approbate and reprobate on the same issue – Corporation’s
     non-disclosure is suppression of such high magnitude, akin to a
     clear fraud on court – Written statement of the Corporation and
     its award are documents of immense significance which were
     sufficient to tilt the balance in favour of the respondent – Objection
     of the Corporation to the Single Judge receiving such document
     as evidence in course of exercise of review jurisdiction without
     any substance and merits outright rejection – As regards payment
     of back wages, the respondent admitted that he was engaged on
     a daily wage basis, and because his service was terminated, he
     could not find a permanent employment elsewhere – No material
     on record to disbelieve him – Also clear that the Corporation
     succeeded in getting rid of the respondent by indulging in the
     misadventure of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi – Thus, in
     the interest of justice the order of the Single Judge awarding
     100% back wages modified and respondent awarded 75% of the
     back wages from the date of his termination till the date of his
     superannuation – Also entitled to full terminal benefits, along with
     interest @ 6% p.a. [Paras 24-29, 30-33, 35, 36, 43-49]

     Service law – Termination of service – Payment of back
     wages, when:
     Held: 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 fact-finding exercise by the industrial adjudicator/
     court to ascertain whether in the interregnum the employee
     was gainfully employed – If the employee admits of any gainful
     employment and gives particulars of the employment together with
102                                                               [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 ought to be awarded on reinstatement is
       really in the realm of discretion of the court – While grant of full
       back wages is the normal rule, an exceptional case with sufficient
       proof has to be set up by the employer to escape the burden of
       bearing back wages. [Paras 43, 44]

       Maxims – Suggestio falsi and suppresio veri – Meaning of:
       Held: Phrases suggestio falsi and suppresio veri embody concepts
       of unethical conduct of a party having serious consequences in
       various fields including law – 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. [Paras 23, 24]

                                 Case Law Cited
       Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority [2014] 13 SCR
       895 : 2015 (3) SCC 49; T.N. State Transport Corpn. (Coimbatore)
       Ltd. v. M. Chandrasekaran [2016] 4 SCR 266 : (2016) 16 SCC 16;
       Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Phool Chand
       [2018] 11 SCR 448 : (2018) 18 SCC 229; Deepali Gundu Surwase
       v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyala [2013] 9 SCR 1: (2013)
       10 SCC 324; State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan [2011]
       11 SCR 678 : (2011) 7 SCC 639; Union of India v. N. Murugesan
       [2021] 10 SCR 253 : (2022) 2 SCC 25; Hindustan Tin Works (P)
       Ltd. v. Employees [1979] 1 SCR 563 : (1979) 2 SCC 80; Surendra
       Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
       [1981] 1 SCR 789 : (1980) 4 SCC 443 – referred to.

                         Books and Periodicals Cited
       Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition – referred to.

                                    List of Acts
       Constitution of India; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Evidence Act,
       1872; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Code of Civil Procedure,
       1908.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           103

               Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                           Mahadeo Krishna Naik

                                List of Keywords
      Removal from service; Back wages; Industrial dispute; Industrial
      adjudication; Suggestio falsi; Supressio veri; Dismissal due to
      gross negligence; Superannuation; Probative value; Fairness in
      procedure; Principles of natural justice; Suppression of evidence;
      Contradictory stances of a party; Fraud on court; Full terminal
      benefits; Lumpsum compensation to employee; Compensation;
      ‘He who asserts must prove’; Special knowledge; Reinstatement;
      Positive evidence of negative fact; Employment in the interregnum;
      Automatic relief of back wages; Review jurisdiction; Daily wage
      basis; 100% back wages; Award of 75% back wages; Full terminal
      benefits; Suggestio falsi and suppresio veri; Fraud.

                               Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13834 of 2024
      From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2018 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Bombay in RP No. 18 of 2018

                             Appearances for Parties
      Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Ms. Akanksha
      Rathore, Ms. Kinjal Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Parvin Waman Satale, Rishabh Jain, S. K. Sarkar, Rajiv Shankar
      Dvivedi, Advs. for the Respondent.

                      Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Judgment

      Dipankar Datta J.

      The Appeal
1.    This appeal by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,1
      by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated
      30th November 20182 of Hon’ble S.C. Gupte, J.3 of the High Court


1    Corporation
2    impugned order
3    single judge
104                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                              Digital Supreme Court Reports


       of Bombay4 allowing a petition for review5 of his earlier order dated
       7th February 2017 of dismissal of a writ petition6 instituted by the
       respondent. 7 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 4th Labour Court at Mumbai.8
       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 Officer9
       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




4    High Court
5    Review Petition No. 18 of 2018
6    Writ Petition No. 154 of 2007
7    Mahadeo
8    Labour Court
9    disciplinary authority
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          105

               Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                           Mahadeo Krishna Naik

      was fair;10 the findings of the inquiry officer were not perverse;11 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.12
5.    Crestfallen, Mahadeo invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court
      by applying under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.13 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, 198814 before the Motor Accidents
      Claims Tribunal at Mumbai.15 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, 2004,16 applied for review before the
      High Court17. 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 lorry driver, who was driving carelessly without observing
      traffic norms. It was stated before the MACT that the driver of the
      lorry drove it into the Corporation’s bus and that no fault could have
      at all been attributed to Mahadeo for the accident. Furthermore, in
      its defence, the Corporation led evidence before the MACT of the


10   vide preliminary award dated 26th May, 2004
11   vide preliminary award dated 9th December, 2005
12   vide final award dated 16th May, 2006
13   W.P. 154 of 2007
14   the 1988 Act
15   MACT
16   the said award
17   Review Petition No.18 of 2018
106                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       conductor of the bus and a passenger who emphatically stated
       that the lorry driver was completely at fault for the accident. The
       single judge noticed the fact that the proceeding before the MACT
       culminated into an award for compensation in favour of the claimants
       therein, where the MACT recognising the fact that the lorry driver
       was at fault, did not affix any liability on the Corporation. Based on
       the pleadings and the evidence presented by the Corporation, the
       MACT categorically held that the accident took place because of the
       negligence of the lorry driver.
8.     It became clear to the single judge that such relevant evidence was
       suppressed before the Labour Court. This material, in the opinion of
       the single judge, had a crucial and conclusive bearing on the case
       before the Labour Court.
9.     The single judge relied on a decision of this Court reported in
       Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority,18 where it was
       held that disregard of a vital piece of evidence is one of the factors
       to be considered while examining whether an order is perverse. The
       single judge further held that if the material produced before the
       MACT had been produced before it, the Labour Court would have
       reached a diametrically opposite conclusion than the one it reached
       in the present case.
10. The Corporation contended that a conclusion reached by a claims
    tribunal under the 1988 Act is not binding on the Labour Court, with
    which the single judge agreed. However, the single judge held that
    the Corporation had admitted in a sworn pleading that the accident
    was not due to the negligence of Mahadeo. This newly produced
    material, which existed when the Labour Court made its award and
    the order dismissing the writ petition was made, could not be produced
    by Mahadeo, yet, it was of such a clinching nature that on the face
    of this material, no court could come to the conclusion that Mahadeo
    was rightly dismissed from service due to gross negligence on his
    part amounting to misconduct.
11. Mahadeo pleaded his inability to produce this material before as he
    only became aware of the proceedings before the MACT in June, 2017
    and received the certified copies of the materials by 23rd June 2017.


18   2015 (3) SCC 49
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          107

              Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                          Mahadeo Krishna Naik

      This was neither challenged by the Corporation before the single
      judge nor was it shown that Mahadeo, despite being aware of the
      proceedings before the MACT, went into slumber.
12. Hence, recording satisfaction that a case for review had been set up,
    the single judge proceeded to observe that no useful purpose would be
    served by remanding the matter to the Labour Court as the materials
    spoke for themselves and no case of negligence could be made out
    against Mahadeo by the Corporation. Consequently, the Corporation
    suffered an order for payment of all benefits and emoluments including
    back wages on the basis of continuous service of Mahadeo from
    the date of his wrongful termination till his superannuation. Since
    Mahadeo had attained the age of superannuation, reinstatement
    was denied.
13. The writ petition, thus, stood allowed on review of the earlier order
    of dismissal.

      Contentions of the Parties
14. On behalf of the Corporation, exception is taken to the impugned
    order on the following grounds:
      (i)    Mahadeo was a trained driver who was responsible for the
             safety of the passengers travelling in the bus. It is a fact that
             there was extensive damage to the bus and its passengers
             by the lorry and even though Mahadeo might have swerved
             to avoid the collision, there was a massive impact on account
             of the high speed of the bus. To bolster this submission, the
             Corporation relied on a decision of this Court in T.N. State
             Transport Corpn. (Coimbatore) Ltd. v. M. Chandrasekaran19
             where it was held that the injuries caused to the passengers
             and the nature of impact raises an inference that the bus was
             being driven negligently by the bus driver.
      (ii)   The proceedings before the MACT and the disciplinary
             proceedings stand on completely different footing. The
             disciplinary proceedings were aimed at examining the role
             of Mahadeo in the collision, whereas the MACT proceedings
             aimed to determine the negligence of the drivers involved in
             the collision.


19   (2016) 16 SCC 16
108                                                            [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


       (iii) Judicial review is limited to analysis of the decision-making
             process and the High Court could not have ventured into the
             correctness of the decision itself. Once it has been established
             that no ground for review was made out on the aspects of
             fairness and propriety of the inquiry, the High Court should not
             have interfered with the decision of the Labour Court.
       (iv) The single judge has substituted its view in the place of the
            competent authority and erred in not remanding the matter to
            the Labour Court.
       (v)    Full back wages have been awarded to Mahadeo without any
              evidence that he was not gainfully employed during the period
              from his termination to his superannuation. The single judge
              erred in ignoring the fact that Mahadeo had a blemished service
              record, and several punishments had been meted out to him
              during his short service period. Reliance has been placed on
              the decision Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,
              Jaipur v. Phool Chand 20 to contend that it is settled law that
              back wages are not automatic even if termination is set aside;
              hence, the single judge erred in not supplying reasons for award
              of full backwages.
15. Mahadeo, supporting the impugned order, advanced the following
    arguments:
       (i)    The Corporation has indulged in committing fraud on the Court,
              by not disclosing the fate of the judicial proceedings before
              the MACT and the pleadings filed therein, to obtain favourable
              orders.
       (ii)   Mahadeo has been fighting this legal battle since 1997 and due
              to dismissal from service, he has been unable to find any other
              permanent employment as a driver. He has been victimised by
              the Corporation and has suffered irreparable financial loss due
              to its condemnable actions.
       (iii) The impugned order of the single judge granting relief is justified
             having regard to the decision of this Court in Deepali Gundu




20   (2018) 18 SCC 229
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                                 109

                 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                             Mahadeo Krishna Naik

                 Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyala,21 where
                 this Court has held that if an employee is terminated on the
                 basis on frivolous allegations in violation of natural justice, that
                 in itself will be ample justification to award full backwages.

      Issues
16. To our mind, the present controversy tasks us to address four issues.
    The first is 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. Depending on an affirmative
    answer to the first issue, the second issue would be whether, on
    facts and in the circumstances, the single judge was justified in
    exercising review jurisdiction. Again, an affirmative answer to the
    second issue would require serious consideration as to whether
    any interference with the direction for payment of full back wages
    is called for or not. Fourthly and finally, subject to our answers to all
    the three issues, what would be the appropriate relief for Mahadeo
    needs to be considered.

      Written Statement of the Corporation before the Mact
17. To answer the above issues, we need to appreciate what was
    the nature of claim before the MACT, what precisely was the
    defence raised by the Corporation to avoid liability for payment of
    compensation, and what was the outcome of such proceedings.
18. The road accident taking the lives of two young children and causing
    injury to several others had given rise to a First Information Report.22
    Mahadeo was not named as an accused therein. The driver of the
    lorry, involved in such accident, was the sole accused in the FIR.
    This fact was known to the Corporation from day one of the accident.
    The parents of Nitin Vardekar,23 a deceased passenger aged 17
    years, had approached the MACT with a claim for compensation24
    under section 166 of the 1988 Act, impleading the Corporation,25 the



21   (2013) 10 SCC 324
22   FIR
23   claimants
24   Application No. 2901/1996
25   OP - 1
110                                                               [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


       owner of the lorry26 and the insurer of the lorry27 as opposite parties.
19. To contest the claim of the claimants, the Divisional Controller of the
    Mumbai Division of the Corporation, Kurla, Mumbai filed the written
    statement, on solemn affirmation, for consideration of the MACT.
    Relevant passages from the said written statement read as follows:
              “4. …..It is true that when the said S.T. Bus reached at
              Pen Phata on Mumbai Goa Highway at Nagothane at
              about 22:45 hrs on 10.05.1996 at that time one M/Lorry
              bearing Registration no. MRL 8226 came from the opposite
              direction in a very fast speed and in rash and negligent
              manner and gave heavy dash to the driver side of the S.T.
              Bus. It is also true that due to the said impact, the right side
              of the S.T. was cut off and the deceased who was sitting
              on the right side in the said S.T. Bus sustained injuries.
              5. With reference to para 22(ii) of the application, this and
              by the correct side of the road (sic). The said S.T. Bus
              was fully under the control of the Bus Driver of this Opp.
              Party. When the said S.T. Bus came near Pen Phata, at
              Nagothane, at that time one M/Lorry bearing registration
              no. MRL8226 which was being driven by the driver of the
              Opp. Party No. 2, at a fast speed, rashly, negligently and
              without any care, caution and proper lookout from the
              opposite direction of the S.T. Bus, could not control his
              vehicle, came on the wrong side of the road and dashed
              against the bus very heavily. The impact was so heavy
              that the right portion of the S.T. Bus from the driver’s side
              was tore and the passenger i.e. the deceased sustained
              injuries. The S.T. Bus driver, on seeing the M/Lorry coming
              towards the bus, tried to save his vehicle to his left side
              to avoid the accident. However, as the driver of the Opp.
              Party No.2 came abruptly in front of the bus in a rash and
              negligent manner, it came in contact of the right side of the
              S.T. sustained injuries and was removed to the hospital.
              It will this be observed that there was no negligence
              whatsoever on the part of the S.T. Bus driver, but it was


26   OP - 2
27   OP - 3
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                                111

              Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                          Mahadeo Krishna Naik

              sheer negligence on the part of the driver of the Opp. Party
              No. 2 who drove his M/lorry rashly, carelessly and Opp.
              Party denies that the accident is of such a nature that it
              would not have taken place but for the gross negligence
              and rashness of the driver of this Opp. Party and puts
              the applicants to the strict proof thereof. This Opp. Party
              further denies that the driver of the S.T. Bus was rash
              and negligent while driving the same in as much as he
              drove the said vehicle at a high, excessive and improper
              speed or that he drove the said S.T. Bus without taking
              precautions and/or keeping proper lookout or watch for
              the traffic and puts the applicant to the strict proof thereof.
              This opp. Party further denies that the driver of the S.T.
              Bus failed and neglected to apply the breaks and/or failed
              to apply the breaks efficiently and/or in sufficient time to
              avoid the accident or neglected to manoeuvre the vehicle
              so as to avoid the accident and puts the applicant to the
              strict proof thereof.”
                                                      (emphasis supplied)

      Award of the Mact
20. MACT, Mumbai, considering the claim raised by the claimants and
    the defence of the Corporation recorded the evidence of, inter alia,
    a passenger named Anant Chindarkar28 and the conductor of the
    Corporation’s bus named Chandrakant Lokhe,29 respectively. On
    the basis of appreciation of the materials on record, the MACT
    proceeded to deliver the said award. We consider it appropriate to
    extract relevant passages from the said award hereinbelow:
              “2. …Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are father and mother
              respectively of the deceased Nitin. On 10.5.1996 the
              deceased was travelling by S.T. Bus No.MH-12-Q-8712.
              It was going along Mumbai Goa Highway. At about 10.45
              p.m., it reached at Nagothane. At that time, one Motor
              Lorry No.MRL-8226 came from the front side in very fast



28   P.W. 2
29   D.W. 1
112                                                     [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                   Digital Supreme Court Reports


       speed and gave dash to the said S.T. Bus at its’s driver’s
       side. Therefore, right side of S.T. Bus was cut off. The
       deceased was seriously injured and died on the spot.
       ****
       3. Opposite party No.1 M.S.R.T.C. filed written statement
       Exhibit-8. It’s case is that: The said Motor lorry came on
       wrong side of the road and dashed the S.T. Bus heavily.
       The accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver
       of the said lorry.
       ****

                        ISSUES                          FINDINGS
       1)     Whether the Applicants prove that                Yes
              the accident took place due to rash
              and negligent driving of vehicle
              No.MRL-8226?
       2)     Whether the Applicants prove that                Yes
              the deceased died in the said
              accident?
              Whether the Applicants prove that             Yes,
              they are entitled to compensation as
              alleged?                             Rs.1,40,000/-
       ****
       8. Applicants examined one Anant Chindarkar as P.W.2
       as an eye witness. P.W.2 stated that: On 10.5.1996 he
       was accompanying the deceased in the said S.T. Bus.
       Deceased was sitting on seat No.25. Near Pen fatta, one
       lorry came from front side and gave dash to the S.T. Bus.
       That lorry was in great speed. It hit S.T. Bus as it’s middle
       portion of the right side. Therefore right side of the S.T.
       Bus was torn. The deceased got injuries on his head and
       chest. He became unconscious. Police came on the spot
       after about 15 to 20 minutes and removed the deceased
       to Nagothane Rural Hospital by one private car. P.W.2 and
       his friends also went to that hospital. Doctor examined the
       deceased and declared him dead. Number of that S.T.
       Bus is MH-12-Q-8712. Number of that lorry is MRL-8226.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          113

           Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                       Mahadeo Krishna Naik

           ****
           10. Opposite party No.1 M.S.R.T.C. examined one
           Chandrakant Lokhe as D.W.1. He stated that on 10.5.1996
           he was conductor of the said S.T. Bus. Accident happened
           near Nagothane Fatta at about 10.45 p.m. Speed of S.T.
           Bus was about 30 K.M.P.H. There was vehicular traffic on
           the road. The S.T. Bus was on the left side of the road.
           The said lorry came from front side in great speed and
           gave dash to middle portion of right side of S.T. Bus. The
           accident happened because lorry came to wrong side of
           the road. Body of S.T. Bus was torn. The lorry went further
           ahead and then overturned. The S.T. Bus was stopped
           immediately after the accident. Lorry driver was responsible
           for the accident.
           ****
           13. …Spot panchnama Exhibit-23 further shows that: The
           said truck No. MRL 8226 after giving dash to the S.T. Bus
           went towards western side of the road. Then it hit and
           uprooted six stones on the kacha road. Thereafter, it went
           below the road and dashed one tree. It was standing there
           facing towards the road. Trucks body is of iron. Upper
           side of truck’s cabin was broken and was lying near it. It
           stopped about 115 feet away from the place of accident.
           Driver’s side body of the truck was seen damaged.
           ****
           16. P.W.2 Anant Chindarkar was one of the passengers
           in the said S.T. Bus. That fact is not disputed by the other
           side. D.W.1 Chandrakant Lokhe was the conductor of the
           said S.T. Bus. It is also not disputed. P.W.2 and D.W.1
           were, therefore, supposed to have personal knowledge
           and experience of the circumstances in which the accident
           occurred. Both of them blamed driver of the said lorry for
           the occurrence.
           ****
           20. For the aforesaid reasons I find that the accident took
           place because of rash and negligent driving of the said
114                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


           truck No.MRL-8226. Issue No.1 is, therefore, answered
           affirmatively.
           ****
           25. Consequently, the applicants are entitled to get total
           compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rs.1,30,000 + Rs.10,000).
           Admittedly: Deceased died in the accident in question. The
           said motor lorry was involved in it. It was insured with the
           New India Assurance Co. Ltd., on the date of the accident.
           The Opposite party No.2, Ramesh Suryawanshi is owner
           of the said lorry. Therefore, I find that Opposite Party No.2
           and Insurer are liable to pay aforesaid compensation of
           Rs.1,40,000/- to the applicants. Issue No.3 is answered
           accordingly.
           ****
           27. Hence, the following order:
                                     ORDER
           Application is partly allowed with proportionate costs.
           Opposite party No.2 Ramesh Suryawanshi and the Insurer
           the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Both are ordered to
           pay jointly and severally Rs.1,40,000 (Rupees One Lakh
           Forty Thousand Only) to the applicants alongwith interest
           at the rate of 6% p.a. From the date of the filing of the
           application i.e. 27.8.1996 till payment.
           It is inclusive of payment under sec.140 of Motor Vehicles
           Act by way of No-Fault Liability.
           The case against Opposite party No.1, M.S.R.T.C. is
           dismissed.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)

       Analysis and Reasons
21. We now proceed to address each of the first three issues, in seriatim,
    with the answer to the fourth and final issue being made part of the
    answer to the third issue.
22. The Latin phrases suggestio falsi and suppresio veri embody concepts
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                         115

                Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                            Mahadeo Krishna Naik

       of unethical conduct of a party having serious consequences in
       various fields including law.
23. According to Black’s Law Dictionary,30 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.
24. That the Corporation indulged in the misadventure of suggestio falsi
    and suppresio veri is incontrovertible.
25. 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, which has been quoted above, 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.
26. The conduct of the Corporation when Mahadeo was struggling to find
    a foothold before the single judge in view of the contours of judicial
    scrutiny of awards of industrial adjudicators cannot also escape notice.
    Perhaps, the Corporation thought that the proceedings before the
    MACT not having been brought to the notice of the Labour Court
    by Mahadeo previously, he was blissfully ignorant of the same and,
    therefore, the Corporation would steal a march over him by not
    making the appropriate disclosure. The Corporation was caught
    off-guard when Mahadeo produced the written statement and the
    award of the MACT before the single judge in his review petition.
27. The relevance of the MACT judgment and its probative value to


30   11th Edition
116                                                             [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       the case at hand cannot be gainsaid. To be relevant, a piece of
       evidence relied on by a party must be shown to have some logical
       connection to the case and its admission would be necessary to prove
       or disprove a fact. Once the evidence is found to be relevant and is
       admitted arises the question of its probative value. Probative value,
       as is well-known, refers to the weight or persuasive power of the
       evidence. It is not always necessary that a piece of evidence found
       relevant to a case would still demand significant probative value. An
       assessment has to be made by the court as to how convincing or
       persuasive the evidence is and how effective it would be to prove
       or disprove a fact.
28. We are conscious that the law of evidence per se does not apply to
    industrial adjudication. Nevertheless, the general principles do apply.
    In any event, in industrial adjudication, principles of natural justice
    have to be complied with. Fairness in procedure has developed as
    the third limb of natural justice. The manner in which the Corporation
    conducted itself before the Labour Court does not behove a creature
    of a statute. It has been far from fair in its dealings with Mahadeo.
29. The Corporation did not deliberately refer to the award of the MACT
    at two different tiers, and thereby actively suppressed relevant
    material from a court of law. We do not propose to enter the arena
    of controversy as to whether the award of the MACT is binding on
    the Labour Court. However, the Corporation could not have at any
    rate resiled from what it pleaded in its own written statement before
    the MACT on a sworn affidavit and deliberately withhold the same.
    This Court has always taken a serious view against suppression
    of evidence in a judicial proceeding. In State of M.P. v. Narmada
    Bachao Andolan,31 a three-Judge bench of this Court observed:
             “164. It is a settled proposition of law that a false statement
             made in the court or in the pleadings, intentionally to
             mislead the court and obtain a favourable order, amounts to
             criminal contempt, as it tends to impede the administration
             of justice. It adversely affects the interest of the public in
             the administration of justice. Every party is under a legal
             obligation to make truthful statements before the court, for
             the reason that causing an obstruction in the due course


31   (2011) 7 SCC 639
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                             117

              Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                          Mahadeo Krishna Naik

             of justice ‘undermines and obstructs the very flow of the
             unsoiled stream of justice, which has to be kept clear and
             pure, and no one can be permitted to take liberties with it
             by soiling its purity’.”
30. Even if we keep the award of the MACT aside, it is clear from the
    pleadings of the Corporation before the MACT and the Labour Court
    that the Corporation has attempted to get the best of both worlds.
    The contradictory nature of the stances taken by the Corporation
    before the Labour Court and the MACT reeks of the Corporation
    trying to approbate and reprobate on the same issue. It is bound to
    cause immense prejudice to Mahadeo if the Corporation is allowed
    to reverse its stance to suit its own interests. This Court in Union
    of India v. N. Murugesan32 while holding that it will be inequitable
    and unfair if a party is allowed to challenge a position while enjoying
    its fruits, ruled:
             “26. These phrases are borrowed from the Scots law. They
             would only mean that no party can be allowed to accept
             and reject the same thing, and thus one cannot blow hot
             and cold. The principle behind the doctrine of election is
             inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. Once
             again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours
             of common law. Therefore, he who knows that if he objects
             to an instrument, he will not get the benefit he wants
             cannot be allowed to do so while enjoying the fruits. One
             cannot take advantage of one part while rejecting the
             rest. A person cannot be allowed to have the benefit of an
             instrument while questioning the same. Such a party either
             has to affirm or disaffirm the transaction. This principle
             has to be applied with more vigour as a common law
             principle, if such a party actually enjoys the one part fully
             and on near completion of the said enjoyment, thereafter
             questions the other part. An element of fair play is inbuilt
             in this principle.”
                                                    (emphasis supplied)

31. The Corporation, without an iota of doubt, being in the dominant


32   (2022) 2 SCC 25
118                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       position has attempted and achieved success in stealing a march
       over Mahadeo by indulging in suggestio falsi and suppressio veri.
       The actions of the Corporation have resulted in Mahadeo being
       robbed of a stable livelihood and has caused irreparable harm to
       him. It would not behove any court, much less this Court, to allow
       such free reign to a party. Omission, neglect and/or failure – whatever
       be the cause - the Corporation’s non-disclosure of what its stand
       was before the MACT and what was ultimately held by the MACT
       to the Labour Court as well as the single judge is suppression of
       such high magnitude that it can safely be held to be akin to a clear
       fraud on court.
32. It also appears to us that the actions of the Corporation were
    motivated. The track record of Mahadeo would show that he had
    been involved in 8 collisions before the collision with the lorry. Why
    the Corporation did not get rid of Mahadeo before is best known to
    it. However, wanting to get rid of Mahadeo, the Corporation on this
    occasion found a convenient excuse in the collision and went ahead
    to dismiss him in the most unfair manner.
33. The first issue is, thus, answered in the affirmative.
34. Moving on to the second issue, the same need not detain us for
    long in view of our answer to the first issue.
35. Section 114 read with Order XLVII, 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.
36. 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 Mahadeo. 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.
37. Accordingly, the second issue too is answered in favour of Mahadeo.
38. It is now time to consider the important point of award of back wages.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                              119

              Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                          Mahadeo Krishna Naik

39. There is no dearth of judicial precedents on such point. While not
    referring to all the precedents, we may notice only a couple of them
    here.
40. Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees33 is a decision rendered
    by a bench of three Judges of this Court. The following passage from
    the judgment authored by Hon’ble D.A. Desai, J. (as His Lordship
    then was) is instructive:
             “9. It is no more open to debate that in the field of
             industrial jurisprudence a declaration can be given that the
             termination of service is bad and the workman continues
             to be in service. The spectre of common law doctrine
             that contract of personal service cannot be specifically
             enforced or the doctrine of mitigation of damages does
             not haunt in this branch of law. The relief of reinstatement
             with continuity of service can be granted where termination
             of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the
             employer has taken away illegally the right to work of
             the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach
             of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of
             his earnings. If thus the employer is found to be in the
             wrong as a result of which the workman is directed to be
             reinstated, the employer could not shirk his responsibility
             of paying the wages which the workman has been
             deprived of by the illegal or invalid action of the employer.
             Speaking realistically, where termination of service is
             questioned as invalid or illegal and the workman has to
             go through the gamut of litigation, his capacity to sustain
             himself throughout the protracted litigation is itself such
             an awesome factor that he may not survive to see the
             day when relief is granted. More so in our system where
             the law’s proverbial delay has become stupefying. If after
             such a protracted time and energy consuming litigation
             during which period the workman just sustains himself,
             ultimately he is to be told that though he will be reinstated,
             he will be denied the back wages which would be due to
             him, the workman would be subjected to a sort of penalty


33   (1979) 2 SCC 80
120                                                           [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


             for no fault of his and it is wholly undeserved. Ordinarily,
             therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally
             terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to
             the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced
             idleness. That is the normal rule. Any other view would
             be a premium on the unwarranted litigative activity of the
             employer. If the employer terminates the service illegally
             and the termination is motivated as in this case viz. to
             resist the workmen’s demand for revision of wages, the
             termination may well amount to unfair labour practice. In
             such circumstances reinstatement being the normal rule,
             it should be followed with full back wages. Articles 41 and
             43 of the Constitution would assist us in reaching a just
             conclusion in this respect. … “
                                                    (emphasis supplied)

41. Close on the heels of Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. (supra) came
    another seminal decision on entitlement to back wages by another
    three-Judge Bench in Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt.
    Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.34 Hon’ble O. Chinappa
    Reddy, J. (as His Lordship then was) in His Lordship’s inimitable
    style remarked:
             “6. … Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation
             of ‘bread and butter’ statutes. Welfare statutes must, of
             necessity receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation
             is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief,
             the court is not to make inroads by making etymological
             excursions. ‘Void ab initio’, ‘invalid and inoperative’ or
             call it what you will, the workmen and the employer are
             primarily concerned with the consequence of striking
             down the order of termination of the services of the
             workmen. Plain common sense dictates that the removal
             of an order terminating the services of workmen must
             ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
             workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it
             must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may


34   (1980) 4 SCC 443
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           121

           Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                       Mahadeo Krishna Naik

           be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible
           or wholly inequitable vis-à-vis the employer and workmen
           to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance,
           the industry might have closed down or might be in severe
           financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have
           secured better or other employment elsewhere and so
           on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left
           in the court to make appropriate consequential orders.
           The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where
           reinstatement is impossible because the industry has
           closed down. The court may deny the relief of award of
           full back wages where that would place an impossible
           burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional
           cases the court may mould the relief, but, ordinarily the
           relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back
           wages. That relief must be awarded where no special
           impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly
           shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an
           employer but we must remember that, more often than
           not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be
           caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the
           employer if the relief is granted.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)

42. There have been decisions of this Court rendered thereafter where a
    shift in approach on awarding full back wages is clearly discernible.
    However, a coordinate bench of this Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase
    (supra) considered a dozen precedents on award of back wages
    upon reinstatement (referred to in paragraphs 13 and 14). Speaking
    through Hon’ble G. S. Singhvi, J. (as His Lordship then was), the
    legal position was neatly summed up in the following words:
           “22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position
           which he held before dismissal or removal or termination
           of service implies that the employee will be put in the
           same position in which he would have been but for the
           illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered
           by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise
           terminated from service cannot easily be measured in
           terms of money. With the passing of an order which has
122                                                      [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


       the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship,
       the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only
       the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers
       grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of
       sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food
       and all opportunities of education and advancement in life.
       At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and
       other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings
       continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides
       on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The
       reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by
       a finding of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial body or
       court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires
       the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural
       justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If
       the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee
       or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits,
       then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that
       during the intervening period the employee was gainfully
       employed and was getting the same emoluments. The
       denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered
       due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to
       indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding
       the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back
       wages including the emoluments.”

                x                    x                    x
       38. The propositions which can be culled out from the
       aforementioned judgments are:
       38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service,
       reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages
       is the normal rule.
       38.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while
       deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority
       or the court may take into consideration the length of service
       of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any,
       found proved against the employee/workman, the financial
       condition of the employer and similar other factors.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           123

           Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                       Mahadeo Krishna Naik

           38.3. Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services
           are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages
           is required to either plead or at least make a statement
           before the adjudicating authority or the court of first
           instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was
           employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid
           payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also
           lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman
           was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to
           the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination
           of service. This is so because it is settled law that the
           burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies
           on the person who makes a positive averment about its
           existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than
           to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee
           shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the
           employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee
           was gainfully employed and was getting the same or
           substantially similar emoluments.
           38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial
           Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the
           Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though
           the enquiry held against the employee/workman is
           consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified
           standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment
           was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved,
           then it will have the discretion not to award full back
           wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal
           finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of
           any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false
           charge, then there will be ample justification for award of
           full back wages.
           38.5. The cases in which the competent court or tribunal
           finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the
           statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice
           or is guilty of victimising the employee or workman, then
           the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in
           directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the
           superior courts should not exercise power under Article
124                                                      [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                  Digital Supreme Court Reports


       226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the
       award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because
       there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the
       entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back
       wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same.
       The courts must always keep in view that in the cases of
       wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is
       the employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman
       and there is no justification to give a premium to the
       employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the
       burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the
       form of full back wages.
       38.6. In a number of cases, the superior courts have
       interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory
       authority on the premise that finalisation of litigation
       has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases
       the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of
       infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay
       in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be
       blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice
       to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages
       simply because there is long lapse of time between the
       termination of his service and finality given to the order
       of reinstatement. The courts should bear in mind that in
       most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous
       position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail
       the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony
       of the sufferer i.e. the employee or workman, who can
       ill-afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with
       certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would
       be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan
       Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees [(1979) 2 SCC 80].
       38.7. The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P.
       Agrawal [(2007) 2 SCC 433] that on reinstatement the
       employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of
       right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three-Judge
       Benches referred to hereinabove [Hindustan Tin Works
       (P) Ltd. (supra) and Surendra Kumar Verma (supra)] and
       cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                         125

           Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                       Mahadeo Krishna Naik

           is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an
           employee/workman.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

43. We cannot but endorse our wholehearted concurrence with the
    views expressed in the aforesaid decisions. Taking a cue therefrom,
    it can safely be concluded 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. It is discernible from certain
    precedents, duly noticed in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra), that
    the courts are loath to award back wages for the period when no
    work has been performed by such an employee. Such a view is no
    doubt debatable, having regard to the ratio decidendi in Hindustan
    Tin Works (P) Ltd. (supra), Surendra Kumar Verma (supra) and
    Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra). Though the latter decision was
    cited before the coordinate bench when it decided Phool Chand
    (supra), any thoughtful discussion appears to be absent.
44. There is one other aspect that would fall for consideration of the court.
    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
126                                                           [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 Industrial Disputes 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. We 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. This is based on the principle that although
       the employee was willing to perform work, it was the employer who
       did not accept work from him and, therefore, if the employer’s action
       is held to be illegal and bad, such employer cannot escape from
       suffering the consequences. However, it is elementary but requires
       to be restated that while grant of full back wages is the normal rule,
       an exceptional case with sufficient proof has to be set up by the
       employer to escape the burden of bearing back wages.
45. We hasten to add that the courts may be confronted with cases
    where grant of lumpsum compensation, instead of reinstatement
    with back wages, could be the more appropriate remedy. The courts
    may, in such cases, providing justification for its approach direct such
    lumpsum compensation to be paid keeping in mind the interest of
    the employee as well as the employer.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                            127

              Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
                          Mahadeo Krishna Naik

46. Mahadeo has 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 Mahadeo. Since the exact
    quantum of wages earned by Mahadeo is not available and at the
    same time it is clear as crystal that the Corporation succeeded in its
    attempt to get rid of Mahadeo by indulging in the misadventure of
    suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, we are of the considered opinion
    that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if, in modification of
    the order of the single judge awarding 100% back wages, Mahadeo
    is awarded 75% of the back wages from the date of his termination
    till the date of his superannuation.
47. The third issue having thus been answered, we are left with the
    fourth and final issue.
48. It is ordered that Mahadeo is entitled to 75% of the back wages from
    the date of his termination till the date of his superannuation. This
    would be apart from Mahadeo being entitled to full terminal benefits,
    along with interest @ 6% per annum, had he never been dismissed
    from service. It is ordered accordingly.
49. The amounts Mahadeo is entitled to in terms of this order shall be
    released in his favour by the Corporation within three months from
    date of its communication; in default, the said amount shall carry
    further interest @ 2% from such default till full payment.

     Conclusion
50. With the aforesaid modification of the impugned order, this civil
    appeal stands disposed of.
51. Parties shall bear their own costs.

     Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain