Labour Court's Factual Finding Shouldn't Be Normally Disturbed By Writ Court Without Compelling Reason : Supreme Court

Observing that the factual findings of a Labour Court should not be normally disturbed by a Writ Court without a compelling reason, the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of an employee who had been terminated due to conflicts arising from his estranged marital relationship.

The bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti allowed the appeal of the employee.

In this case, the appellant secured a job as a 'Helper' as part of the rehabilitation package after his father-in-law's land was acquired for the Kaiga Atomic Power Project in 1990. However, after the employee's marriage with his wife became estranged in around 1997, his father-in-law sought termination contending that he was not married to his daughter disentitling him to continue the job. In 2001, the marriage was dissolved by a consent decree

The departmental inquiry was answered against the 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 (ID Act).

The Labor Court under the ID Act set aside the termination order holding 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 an appointment under the prevalent Scheme intended for the land-loser's family member.

However, the High Court on an appeal preferred by the management concluded that the appellant had misrepresented that he was the son-in-law of the land loser (Bellanna Venkanna Gowda) and secured the job by playing fraud with the Management.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the order authored by Justice Roy observed that the High Court erred in terminating the appellant's employment.

“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.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the Court directed the reinstatement of the employee:

“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 benefits. The appellant is ordered to be reinstated in service, within four weeks from today.”

The appeal was allowed.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR Mr. Prasad Hegde, Adv. Ms. Kanti, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Shreenivas Patil, Adv. Ms. Raji Gururaj, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. A P Singh, Adv. Mr. Varnit Vashistha, Adv. Mr. Tavinder Sidhu, Adv. Ms. Shrinkhla Tiwari, Adv. M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR

Case Title: GANAPATI BHIKARAO NAIK VERSUS NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 898

Click here to read/download the order