Supreme Court reinstates employee terminated for alleged misrepresentation: Ganapati Bhikarao Naik vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 13 November 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 871

Judges: Hrishikesh Roy, J., S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

Can an employer terminate an employee who was hired as a land-loser’s family member, after the employee’s divorce from the land-loser’s daughter? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case where an employee was terminated for allegedly misrepresenting his marital status. The core issue was whether the employee, who initially secured employment as the son-in-law of a land-loser, was rightfully terminated after his divorce. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Ganapati Bhikarao Naik, married Smt. Ganga on 7 May 1990. Smt. Ganga was the daughter of Bellanna Venkanna Gowda, who owned land in Devkar Village. A portion of this land was acquired for the Kaiga Atomic Power Project. As part of the rehabilitation package for land-losers, Bellanna Venkanna Gowda applied for a job for his son-in-law, Ganapati Bhikarao Naik. A certificate was issued on 21 August 1990 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kali River Project, Dandeli, confirming Ganapati Bhikarao Naik as the land-loser’s son-in-law. Subsequently, Ganapati Bhikarao Naik was appointed as a Helper in the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (Management). In his attestation form and ration card, Smt. Ganga was listed as his wife, which was also counter-signed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the Management.

Later, marital issues arose, and Smt. Ganga moved back to her father’s house. Despite this, on 24 May 1997, the land-loser, Bellanna Venkanna Gowda, communicated to the Senior Manager of the Management that he had no objection to the confirmation of Ganapati Bhikarao Naik’s job, despite his daughter’s absence from her marital home due to mental distress. Around this time, Ganapati Bhikarao Naik filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was finalized on 16 June 2001 through a consent decree.

Following the estrangement and divorce proceedings, the land-loser made complaints, leading to a charge memo issued on 10 January 2000. The charge memo alleged that Ganapati Bhikarao Naik was not married to Smt. Ganga and was therefore ineligible for the job. An inquiry led to his termination on 19 April 2002. The appellate and revisional authorities upheld the termination, leading Ganapati Bhikarao Naik to seek a Reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, in Reference CR No. 66 of 2007, concluded that Ganapati Bhikarao Naik had indeed married Smt. Ganga and was appointed under the scheme for land-loser’s family members. The Labour Court thus ruled in favor of Ganapati Bhikarao Naik, ordering his reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits. The Management challenged this Award in the High Court of Karnataka through W.P. No. 71540 of 2012. The High Court did not stay the Labour Court’s order, and instead, on 6 June 2014, directed the remittance of wages payable to the appellant. However, in the final judgment dated 16 December 2020, the learned Single Judge set aside the Labour Court’s award, concluding that Ganapati Bhikarao Naik had misrepresented his status as the land-loser’s son-in-law to secure the job.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the scheme for providing jobs to family members of land-losers, specifically the eligibility criteria for a son-in-law. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly Section 13, which deals with divorce, is also relevant. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides the framework for the reference to the Labour Court and the subsequent challenge in the High Court.

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with divorce.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides the framework for the reference to the Labour Court.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that he was indeed married to Smt. Ganga, the land-loser’s daughter, at the time of his appointment. The certificate issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the attestation form, and the ration card all confirmed this fact.
• The appellant contended that the Labour Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and concluded that he was eligible for the job. The subsequent divorce should not invalidate his initial appointment, which was based on his marital status at the time.
• The appellant emphasized that the land-loser himself had stated that he had no objection to the confirmation of the appellant’s job, even after his daughter had left her marital home.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the appellant had misrepresented his marital status to secure the job, and that the subsequent divorce invalidated his claim to the job.
• The respondent contended that the appellant was not entitled to the job as he was no longer the son-in-law of the land-loser.
• The respondent argued that the High Court was correct in setting aside the Labour Court’s award, as the appellant had secured the job by playing fraud with the Management.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. 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.
2. Whether the findings recorded in the impugned judgment valid and reasonable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the factual findings of the Labour Court and the evidence presented, including the certificate issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the attestation form, and the ration card. It also considered the communication from the land-loser stating no objection to the appellant’s job confirmation. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the Labour Court should not be disturbed by a Writ Court without compelling reasons.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to relief in terms of the Labour Court’s Award dated 09.08.2012, with consequential service benefits. However, the Court clarified that the appellant would not be entitled to back wages from 16.12.2020 (when the Single Judge set aside the Award) until his reinstatement. The gap period from 16.12.2020 till reinstatement was to be considered for all other service benefits. The appellant was ordered to be reinstated within four weeks.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The factual findings of the Labour Court were given significant weight, and the Supreme Court held that these findings should not have been disturbed by the High Court without compelling reasons.
• The certificate issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was considered as evidence that the appellant was considered the land-loser’s son-in-law at the time of appointment.
• The attestation form, where Smt. Ganga was listed as the appellant’s wife, was considered as evidence of the marital status at the time of appointment.
• The ration card, which also listed Smt. Ganga as the appellant’s wife, was considered further evidence of the marital status at the time of appointment.
• The communication from the land-loser stating no objection to the confirmation of the appellant’s job was considered as evidence supporting the appellant’s case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant was indeed married to the land-loser’s daughter at the time of his appointment, and this was supported by documentary evidence. The Court also emphasized that the Labour Court’s factual findings should not be easily overturned by the High Court. The Court noted that the High Court had overlooked crucial evidence, including the family details recorded by the employer, and the Labour Court’s findings. The Court also took into account that the land-loser himself had no objection to the appellant’s job confirmation, even after the marital discord.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a careful review of the facts and evidence presented. The Court emphasized the importance of not disturbing the factual findings of the Labour Court without compelling reasons. The Court also considered that the appellant was married at the time of appointment and the subsequent divorce did not invalidate his initial appointment.

The Court quoted from the Labour Court’s 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.”

The Court also noted: “The relevant materials reflecting the marriage of the appellant with Smt. Ganga was however ignored by the Writ Court.”

The Court further observed: “Such factual finding of the Labour Court should not normally be disturbed by a Writ Court without compelling reason. Such reasons are absent.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• An employee who secures a job as a family member of a land-loser based on their marital status at the time of appointment cannot be terminated solely because of a subsequent divorce.
• The factual findings of a Labour Court should not be easily disturbed by a High Court in writ jurisdiction unless there are compelling reasons.
• Documentary evidence, such as certificates, attestation forms, and ration cards, play a crucial role in establishing the facts of a case.
• The employer should consider the circumstances at the time of appointment and not solely rely on subsequent events to terminate an employee.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be reinstated in service within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court also clarified that the appellant would not be entitled to back wages from 16 December 2020 until his reinstatement. However, the gap period from 16 December 2020 till reinstatement was to be considered for all other service benefits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an employee who secures a job as a family member of a land-loser based on their marital status at the time of appointment cannot be terminated solely because of a subsequent divorce. This case reinforces the principle that the factual findings of a Labour Court should not be easily disturbed by a High Court in writ jurisdiction unless there are compelling reasons. This decision clarifies that the eligibility for employment under such schemes is determined at the time of appointment, and subsequent changes in personal circumstances do not automatically invalidate the initial appointment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Ganapati Bhikarao Naik vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited reinstates an employee who was terminated for allegedly misrepresenting his marital status. The Court emphasized that the appellant was indeed married at the time of his appointment and that the subsequent divorce did not invalidate his initial appointment. This judgment underscores the importance of considering the circumstances at the time of appointment and not relying solely on subsequent events to terminate an employee. The Court also highlighted the need for High Courts to be cautious when disturbing the factual findings of Labour Courts.