Ganapati Bhikarao Naik vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Limited

Court: Supreme Court
Case type: Civil Appeal
Decided on: 13-11-2024

<pre> REPORTABLE 
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 dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2024.11.18
11:38:37 IST
Reason:
setting aside the Award dated 09.08.2012. Therefore we feel that
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</pre>