Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that the factual finding of the Labour Court should not normally be disturbed by a writ court without compelling reason.

With this, the apex court set aside a man's termination order from his job at Kaiga Nuclear Power Plant which he got because he was the son-in-law of a land loser. The man was removed from the service due to a subsequent divorce.

Allowing the appeal by Ganapati Bhikarao Naik, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V Bhatti noted that the relevant materials reflecting the marriage of the appellant with Smt Ganga, daughter of the land loser was ignored by the writ court, which also failed to appreciate that the Labour Court reached the factual conclusion, after due consideration of the material evidence. 

"Such factual finding of the Labour Court should not normally be disturbed by a writ court without compelling reason. Such reasons are absent. Therefore we feel that the award in favour of the appellant, granted by the Labour Court, was erroneously disturbed by the Single Judge," the bench said.

The appellant questioned the legality of the judgment of December 16, 2020 passed by a single judge bench, setting aside the award granted by the Labour Court on August 09, 2012. 

The court examined the core issue of whether the appellant, as a family member of a land loser, whose land was acquired for the Kaiga Atomic Power Project, had legally secured the job as the son-in-law of the land loser. Also, if the findings recorded in the impugned judgment were valid and reasonable.

On May 07, 1990, the appellant married one Smt Ganga daughter of Bellanna Venkanna Gowda of Devkar Village, who was the owner of land under Survey No 71/2. A portion of the said land was acquired for the Kaiga Atomic Power Project.

Accordingly, the land loser Gowda applied for a certificate for availing a job for his son-in-law – Naik (the appellant), as part of a rehabilitation package. Such a Certificate was granted in favour of the appellant on August 21, 1990 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kali River Project, Dandeli (Uttar Kannada). The appellant was then interviewed for the job and was given appointment as a Helper in the Corporation. 

In the attestation form, furnished by the appellant to the Management, the name of Smt Ganga was shown as the employee’s wife. The said information was counter-signed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the Management. In the Ration Card issued to the appellant, Smt Ganga was mentioned as the appellant’s wife, along with other family members. 

However, matrimonial differences cropped up and Smt Ganga shifted to her father's house. Even at that stage, on May 24, 1997, the land loser in his communication to the Senior Manager (Administration & Labour Relation) stated that although his daughter Smt Ganga, being mentally disturbed, was then not staying with his son-in-law, neither he nor his family members, had any objection for confirmation of the job of the appellant, at the Kaiga Atomic Power Project.

The appellant around that period, filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce from Smt Ganga. The said proceeding concluded with a consent decree of divorce granted on June 16, 2001.

In the meantime, on account of the estrangement between the appellant and his wife and the divorce proceeding initiated by appellant, his father-in-law made complaints, which led to issuance of the charge memo of January 10, 2000, with the allegation that the appellant was not married to Smt. Ganga (the daughter of the land loser) and therefore he was disentitled to secure the job intended for a land-loser’s family member. 

The resultant inquiry was answered against appellant and the said decision led to the termination order on April 19, 2002. The appellate authority and the revisional authority upheld the termination order, which prompted the appellant, to seek a Reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In its proceedings, the tribunal concluded that the appellant had married Smt Ganga (the daughter of the land-loser Gowda) but when the matrimonial relationship became strained and divorce proceeding was initiated, Smt Ganga applied for maintenance, claiming to be the appellant’s wife. The Labour Court accordingly held that this itself would be enough to establish that the appellant had married Smt Ganga and at the instance of the said land-loser, he was given appointment under the prevalent Scheme intended for the land loser’s family member. The reference was accordingly answered favouring the appellant.

The aggrieved management then filed the challenge to the said award. The writ court reached the conclusion that the appellant had misrepresented that he was the son-in-law of the land loser, Gowda and secured the job by playing fraud with the management.

"This conclusion of the single judge was reached without appropriately considering the divorce proceeding between the appellant and his wife - Ganga. The court also overlooked the family details recorded by the employer which indicates Smt Ganga as the wife of the employee. The Ration Card also has the same family details of the appellant," the bench said.

The bench thus held that the appellant was entitled to relief, in terms of the Labour Court’s award of August 09, 2012 with consequential service benefits. 

The court, however, said that allowing back wages might not be justified. It clarified that the reinstated employee, would not be entitled to any back wages from December 16, 2020, when the single judge set aside the award, till he was reinstated. However, the gap period i.e. December 16, 2020 till reinstatement, had to be taken into account for all other service benefits.

The court directed for reinstatement of the appellant within four weeks.

During the hearing before the court, a counsel for Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (Management), submitted that the present case should have awaited the decision in Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd, Bangalore Vs Bharat Fritz Werner Karmika Sangha, Bangalore, which was pending before the court. The said case relates to whether a writ appeal before the division bench is maintainable from the judgment of the single judge in the writ petition, challenging the award of the Labour Court, as in the present case.

The bench, however, said, "We feel that this court need not await the outcome of the decision in Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore, which pertains to intracourt appeal before the division bench, challenging the order of the single judge arising out of an award passed by the Labour Court."

Case Title: Ganapati Bhikarao Naik Vs Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited