Ganapati Bhikarao Naik vs Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

2024 INSC 871 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6591-6592 OF 2024

GANAPATI BHIKARAO NAIK APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

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 Signature Not Verified dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, Digitally signed by

setting aside the Award dated 09.08.2012.

NITIN TALREJA Date: 2024.11.18 11:38:37 IST Therefore we feel that Reason:

this Court need not await the outcome of the decision in Management

1 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) 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. 2

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.

3

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 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- 4 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. 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

5 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.

..........................J. (HRISHIKESH ROY)

..........................J. (S.V.N. BHATTI)

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 13, 2024.

6