Supreme Court Upholds Labour Court Award in Land-Loser Job Case: Ganapati Bhikarao Naik vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13 November 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 871

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

Can a job secured as a land-loser’s family member be terminated if the employee later gets divorced? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question, focusing on whether the initial relationship at the time of appointment is the key factor. The Court considered a case where an employee’s job was terminated after his divorce, despite being initially appointed as the son-in-law of a land-loser. The bench comprised of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, with the judgment authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

The case revolves around Ganapati Bhikarao Naik (the appellant), who was employed by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (the respondent) as a Helper. He secured this job because he was the son-in-law of Bellanna Venkanna Gowda, whose land was acquired for the Kaiga Atomic Power Project. The appellant married Bellanna Venkanna Gowda’s daughter, Smt. Ganga, on 7 May 1990. Following the land acquisition, Bellanna Venkanna Gowda applied for a job for his son-in-law as part of the rehabilitation package. A certificate was granted in favor of the appellant on 21 August 1990. The appellant was then appointed as a Helper. His wife’s name, Smt. Ganga, was recorded in the attestation form and ration card.

However, the marital relationship between the appellant and Smt. Ganga deteriorated, and Smt. Ganga moved back to her father’s house. Despite this, on 24 May 1997, the land-loser, Bellanna Venkanna Gowda, stated that he had no objection to the confirmation of the appellant’s job. Subsequently, the appellant filed for divorce, which was granted on 16 June 2001. Following the divorce, the respondent issued a charge memo on 10 January 2000, alleging that the appellant was not married to Smt. Ganga and was therefore not entitled to the job.

This led to an inquiry and the termination of the appellant’s employment on 19 April 2002. The appellate and revisional authorities upheld the termination order. The appellant then sought 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 the appellant had indeed married Smt. Ganga and was appointed as a land-loser’s family member. The Labour Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that his termination was illegal and ordered his reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits. The Management challenged the Award in W.P. No. 71540 of 2012 (L-TER) before the High Court. The High Court did not stay the Award, but ordered the remittance of wages to the appellant. However, in its final judgment on 16 December 2020, the High Court set aside the Labour Court’s Award, concluding that the appellant had misrepresented himself as the son-in-law of the land-loser and secured the job through fraud. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which governs the resolution of disputes between employers and employees. The Labour Court’s award was made under this Act. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is also relevant as the case involves questions about the validity of the appellant’s marriage and divorce. The appellant had 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.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that he was validly appointed as the son-in-law of the land-loser, Bellanna Venkanna Gowda, and that his initial appointment was based on a valid marriage with Smt. Ganga.
• He contended that the Labour Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and concluded that he was indeed married to Smt. Ganga at the time of his appointment.
• The appellant asserted that the High Court erred in setting aside the Labour Court’s Award without sufficient reasons and by overlooking crucial evidence, such as the family details recorded by the employer and the ration card.
• He highlighted that the land-loser himself had confirmed that he had no objection to the appellant’s job confirmation, even after the marital discord.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the appellant had misrepresented himself as the son-in-law of the land-loser and secured the job by playing fraud with the Management.
• They contended that since the appellant was divorced from Smt. Ganga, he was no longer eligible to continue in the job intended for a land-loser’s family member.
• The respondent relied on the fact that the appellant’s father-in-law had made complaints about the appellant, leading to the charge memo and subsequent termination.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following core issues:

1. Whether the judgment dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the Award dated 09.08.2012, is legally valid?
2. Whether the Labour Court’s Award was erroneously disturbed by the learned Single Judge?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the factual findings of the Labour Court, which had concluded that the appellant was married to Smt. Ganga at the time of his appointment. The Court also considered the family details recorded by the employer and in the ration card, which indicated Smt. Ganga as the wife of the appellant. The Court noted that the High Court had ignored these materials and had failed to appreciate that the Labour Court had reached its factual conclusion after due consideration of the material evidence. The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or legal provisions other than the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in its reasoning.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the Labour Court’s Award dated 09.08.2012 was erroneously disturbed by the learned Single Judge. The Supreme Court reinstated the Labour Court’s Award with consequential service benefits. However, the Court clarified that the appellant would not be entitled to any back wages from 16.12.2020, when the High Court set aside the Award, till his reinstatement. The gap period from 16.12.2020 till reinstatement should be taken into account for all other service benefits. The appellant was ordered to be reinstated in service within four weeks.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The factual findings of the Labour Court were approved and the Supreme Court relied on them. The family details recorded by the employer and the ration card were considered as evidence supporting the appellant’s claim. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was the legal basis for the Labour Court’s Award, which was upheld. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was considered as a part of the factual context of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
✓ The validity of the initial appointment of the appellant as the son-in-law of the land-loser.
✓ The factual findings of the Labour Court, which had concluded that the appellant was married to Smt. Ganga at the time of his appointment.
✓ The evidence presented by the appellant, including the family details recorded by the employer and the ration card, which indicated Smt. Ganga as his wife.
✓ The fact that the High Court had not appropriately considered the divorce proceedings and had overlooked crucial evidence.
✓ The principle that factual findings of the Labour Court should not be disturbed by a Writ Court without compelling reasons.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the initial relationship at the time of appointment. The Court noted that the High Court had failed to appreciate that the Labour Court reached its factual conclusion after considering the material evidence. The Court stated that such factual findings should not be disturbed by a Writ Court without compelling reason. The Court also noted that the relevant materials reflecting the marriage of the appellant with Smt. Ganga were ignored by the High Court. The Court observed that the family details recorded by the employer and the ration card also indicated Smt. Ganga as the wife of the employee. The Court noted that the land-loser himself had confirmed that he had no objection to the appellant’s job confirmation, even after the marital discord. The Court also noted that the High Court had not appropriately considered the divorce proceeding between the appellant and his wife – Ganga. The Court observed that the High Court had overlooked the family details recorded by the employer (Annexure R/4) which indicates Smt. Ganga as the wife of the employee. The Court also noted that the Ration Card also has the same family details of the appellant.

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• The validity of an appointment based on a family relationship is determined at the time of the initial appointment.
• Factual findings of the Labour Court should not be disturbed by a Writ Court without compelling reasons.
• Evidence such as family details recorded by the employer and ration cards are important in establishing the validity of a relationship.
• The High Court should not overlook crucial evidence and must consider the entire context of the case.
• Divorce after the initial appointment does not automatically invalidate the appointment if it was valid at the time it was made.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The appellant is to be reinstated in service within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
• The appellant is not entitled to any back wages from 16.12.2020 till reinstatement.
• The gap period from 16.12.2020 till reinstatement should be taken into account for all other service benefits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the validity of an appointment based on a family relationship is determined at the time of the initial appointment. The Court emphasized that a subsequent divorce does not automatically invalidate the appointment if it was valid at the time it was made. This decision clarifies the position of law regarding appointments made under rehabilitation schemes for land-losers and provides guidance on how to interpret such appointments in cases of subsequent changes in family relationships. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Court clarified the application of existing principles to the specific facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Ganapati Bhikarao Naik vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited upholds the Labour Court’s award and reinstates the appellant. The Court emphasized that the validity of an appointment based on a family relationship is determined at the time of the initial appointment and that subsequent divorce does not automatically invalidate such appointments. The judgment clarifies the rights of employees appointed under rehabilitation schemes for land-losers and reinforces the principle that factual findings of the Labour Court should not be disturbed by a Writ Court without compelling reasons. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that the appellant is reinstated with service benefits, providing a just outcome in this case.

Category

✓ Labour Law

✓ Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

✓ Labour Law: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Ganapati Bhikarao Naik case?

A: The main issue was whether an employee who was initially appointed as a land-loser’s family member could be terminated after a divorce.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court decided that the employee’s initial appointment was valid, and the subsequent divorce did not automatically invalidate the appointment. The Court reinstated the Labour Court’s award.

Q: What does this mean for similar cases?

A: This means that the validity of an appointment based on a family relationship is determined at the time of the initial appointment. Subsequent changes in the relationship, such as divorce, may not automatically invalidate the appointment.

Q: What is the significance of the Labour Court’s findings in this case?

A: The Labour Court’s factual findings were given importance by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that such factual findings should not be disturbed by a Writ Court without compelling reasons.

Q: What evidence did the Supreme Court consider?

A: The Supreme Court considered the Labour Court’s findings, the family details recorded by the employer, the ration card, and the land-loser’s statement confirming no objection to the appellant’s job confirmation.