GANAPATI BHIKARAO NAIKversusNUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED

                [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1628 : 2024 INSC 871

                     Ganapati Bhikarao Naik
                               v.
            Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
                  (Civil Appeal No(s). 6591-6592 of 2024)
                               13 November 2024
              [Hrishikesh Roy,* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Award
       passed by Labour Court wherein Labour Court allowed the
       reinstatement of the employee with full back wages, continuity of
       service, and all other consequential benefits that the employee
       could have received in the absence of the order of removal from
       service.

                                   Headnotes†

       Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – 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:
       Held: Appellant claims to have married the daughter of the land
       loser, thus was appointed as a helper in the Project, as a family
       member of the land loser – Later, matrimonial differences arose
       and divorce was granted on account of the estrangement between
       the appellant and his wife, the father in law (land loser) made
       complaints against the appointment of appellant in the Project –
       The resultant inquiry was answered against appellant and the said
       decision led to the termination of the appellant – The said termination
       was challenged eventually before the Labour Court – The Labour
       Court after assessing that the divorce proceeding was initiated for
       maintenance by appellant’s wife – The Labour Court held that this
       itself would be enough to establish that the appellant had married
       Smt. Ganga (daughter of land loser) – The Labour Court concluded
       that termination of appellant was illegal, he should be reinstated


* Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                           1629

                      Ganapati Bhikarao Naik v.
              Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

     with full back wages – This award was challenged before High
     Court – The High Court while concluding, overlooked the family
     details recorded by the employer which indicates Smt. Ganga as
     the wife of the employee also the Ration Card has the same family
     details of the appellant – The Court also failed to appreciate that
     the learned Labour Court reached the factual conclusion, after due
     consideration of the material evidence – Therefore this Court held
     that the Award in favour of the appellant, granted by the Labour
     Court, was erroneously disturbed by the learned Single Judge,
     thus impugned judgment is set aside – Reinstatment of appellant
     allowed but the appellant shall not be entitled to any back wages
     from the date of the order of the Single Judge of the High Court
     until his reinstatement – This Court is not in favor to wait for the
     decision in Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore v. Bharat Fritz
     Werner Karmika Sangha, Bangalore as the said case relates to
     maintainability of Writ Appeal challenging the order of the learned
     Single Judge arising out of an Award passed by the Labour Court.
     [Paras 11, 12, 13]

                                List of Acts
     Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

                             List of Keywords
     Reinstatement of employee; Industrial Dispute Act.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No(s). 6591-6592
     of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2020 and 10.04.2023
     of the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in WP
     No. 71540 of 2012 and WA No. 100026 of 2021 respectively

                         Appearances for Parties
     K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv., Kailas Bajirao Autade, Prasad Hegde,
     Ms. Kanti, Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Shreenivas Patil,
     Ms. Raji Gururaj, Advs. for the Appellant.
     A. P. Singh, Varnit Vashistha, Tavinder Sidhu, Ms. Shrinkhla Tiwari,
     M/s. M. V. Kini & Associates, Advs. for the Respondent.
1630                                                    [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


               Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Order

     Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1.   Heard Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned senior counsel appearing for
     the appellant.
2.   Ms. Shrinkhla Tiwari, learned counsel appears for the respondent –
     Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (Management).
     She submits that the present case should await the decision in
     Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore v. Bharat Fritz
     Werner Karmika Sangha, Bangalore, which is pending before this
     Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 12658 of 2022 and 12702 of 2022. 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.
3.   This Court is called upon to examine the legality of the judgment
     dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, setting aside
     the Award dated 09.08.2012. Therefore we feel that this Court need
     not await the outcome of the decision in Management of Bharat Fritz
     Werner Ltd., Bangalore, which pertains to intra-court appeal before
     the Division Bench, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge
     arising out of an Award passed by the Labour Court.
4.   The core issue in the present case is 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 valid and reasonable.
5.   On 07.05.1990, the appellant claims to have married one Smt. Ganga,
     the 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 - Bellanna Venkanna Gowda applied for a certificate
     for availing a job for his son-in-law – Ganapati Bhikarao Naik (the
     appellant), as part of rehabilitation package. Such a Certificate was
     granted in favour of the appellant on 21.08.1990 (Annexure R/2)
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                     1631

                      Ganapati Bhikarao Naik v.
              Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

     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.
6.   However, matrimonial differences cropped up and Smt. Ganga shifted
     to her father’s house. Even at that stage, on 24.05.1997, the land-
     loser in his communication to the Senior Manager (Administration &
     Labour Relation) (Annexure R/6) stated that although his daughter
     Smt. Ganga, being mentally disturbed, is currently not staying with
     his son-in-law in recent times, neither he nor his family members,
     have any objection for confirmation of the job of the appellant, at
     the Kaiga Atomic Power Project.
7.   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 16.06.2001.
8.   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 dated 10.01.2000, with the allegation that the
     appellant is not married to Smt. Ganga (the daughter of the land-
     loser) and therefore he is 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
     dated 19.04.2002. 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.
9.   The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in the
     Reference i.e., CR No. 66 of 2007, from the evidence of the witnesses
     concluded that the appellant had married Smt. Ganga (the daughter of
     the land-loser - Bellanna Venkanna Gowda) but when the matrimonial
     relationship became strained and divorce proceeding was initiated,
     Smt. Ganga applied for maintenance, claiming to be the appellant’s
1632                                                       [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     wife. The Labour Court accordingly concluded that this itself would
     be enough to establish that the appellant had married Smt. Ganga
     (the daughter of the land-loser - Bellanna Venkanna Gowda) 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
     and the following Award was passed:

           “                          AWARD

          The reference is allowed holding that the action of the
          management of Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd., Kaiga
          in imposing the penalty of removal from service on Shri
          Ganapthi B Naik w.e.f. 19.04.2002 is illegal and not justified
          and that he is entitle for reinstatement with full back wages,
          continuity of service and all other consequential benefits
          that he could have received in the absence of the impugned
          order of removal from service.”
10. The aggrieved Management then filed the W.P. No. 71540 of 2012
    (L-TER) to challenge the said Award. The Writ Court had no occasion
    to stay the Award and instead on 06.06.2014, passed an interim order
    to ensure remittance of wages payable to the appellant. However
    under the impugned final judgment dated 16.12.2020 the learned
    Judge reached the conclusion that the appellant had misrepresented
    that he is the son-in-law of the land-loser (Bellanna Venkanna Gowda)
    and secured the job by playing fraud with the Management.
11. The above conclusion of the learned 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 (Annexure R/4) which
    indicates Smt. Ganga as the wife of the employee. The Ration Card
    also has the same family details of the appellant.
12. The relevant materials reflecting the marriage of the appellant with
    Smt. Ganga was however ignored by the Writ Court. The Court also
    failed to appreciate that the learned 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.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                          1633

                          Ganapati Bhikarao Naik v.
                  Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

     Therefore we feel that the Award in favour of the appellant, granted
     by the Labour Court, was erroneously disturbed by the learned
     Single Judge.
13. The above discussion persuades us to hold that the appellant is entitled
    to relief, in terms of the Labour Court’s Award dated 09.08.2012 with
    consequential service benefits. But allowing backwages may not be
    justified. It is therefore made clear that the reinstated employee, shall
    not be entitled to any back wages from 16.12.2020, when the learned
    Single Judge set aside the Award, till he is reinstated. However, the
    gap period i.e. 16.12.2020 till reinstatement, should be taken into
    account for all other service benefits. The appellant is ordered to be
    reinstated in service, within four weeks from today.
14. With the above, the appeals stand allowed leaving the parties to
    bear their own cost.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Gaurav Upadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv.)