Factual Findings Of Labour Court Should Not Normally Be Disturbed By A Writ Court Without Compelling Reasons: Supreme Court

The Court set aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and restored the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court which had directed the reinstatement of the Appellant in service. The Appellant was removed from service by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (Respondent) on allegations that he had secured his employment under the rehabilitation scheme for land-losers through misrepresentation.

The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “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.”

Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar represented the Appellant, while Advocate Shrinkhla Tiwari appeared for the Respondent.

The Appellant’s employment was based on his status as a family member of a land-loser whose land was acquired for the Kaiga Atomic Power Project. The Appellant was married to the daughter of a land-loser and a certificate certifying his status as the son-in-law of the land-loser was issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. This certificate formed the basis of his appointment.

The Appellant subsequently filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). The divorce was finalised through a consent decree. Meanwhile, the Appellant’s father-in-law raised complaints alleging that the Appellant had misrepresented his status to obtain the job. Based on these complaints, the employer issued a charge memo dated and terminated the Appellant’s service after concluding the inquiry.

The Appellant approached the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, challenging his termination. The Labour Court, after examining the evidence, held that the Appellant’s termination was illegal and not justified. It directed his reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service, and other consequential benefits.

The Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the Karnataka High Court, which set aside the Labour Court’s award. The High Court stated that the Appellant had obtained employment through misrepresentation and found the termination to be valid.

The core issue for determination was whether the Appellant, as a family member of a land-loser had legally secured the job as the son-in-law of the land-loser.

The Supreme Court noted that the conclusion of the High Court was reached without appropriately considering the divorce proceeding between the Appellant and his wife. The Bench also noted that the High Court also overlooked the family details recorded by the employer which indicated that the Appellant had a wife. “The Ration Card also has the same family details of the appellant,” it noted.

Consequently, the Court held, “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.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Ganapati Bhikarao Naik v. Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Limited (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 871)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar; Advocate Prasad Hegde, Kanti, Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Shreenivas Patil and Raji Gururaj; AOR Kailas Bajirao Autade

Respondent: Advocates A P Singh, Varnit Vashistha, Tavinder Sidhu and Shrinkhla Tiwari

Click here to read/download the Order