2024 (11) TMI 874 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge to Award of the Labour Court - 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 sonin- law, of the land-loser? - HELD THAT - 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 it is felt that the Award in favour of the appellant, granted by the Labour Court, was erroneously disturbed by the learned Single Judge. 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. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of judgment setting aside an award
2. Validity of job secured by appellant as a family member of a land-loser

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine the legality of a judgment setting aside an award. The core issue revolved around whether the appellant, as a family member of a land-loser, had legally secured a job and if the findings in the impugned judgment were valid. The appellant had married the daughter of the land-loser, whose land was acquired for a project. The land-loser had applied for a job for his son-in-law as part of a rehabilitation package, and the appellant was appointed as a Helper in the Corporation. Despite matrimonial differences and divorce proceedings initiated by the appellant, the land-loser confirmed no objection for the appellant's job confirmation.

2. The Writ Court set aside the award, alleging misrepresentation by the appellant in securing the job. However, the Supreme Court observed that the Writ Court failed to consider the divorce proceeding between the appellant and his wife, as well as the family details recorded by the employer and on the ration card, which indicated the appellant's marital status. The Court emphasized that the factual findings of the Labour Court, which favored the appellant, should not have been disturbed without compelling reasons. As such, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to relief in terms of the Labour Court's award, with consequential service benefits, but denied back wages from the date of the judgment setting aside the award.

3. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant should be reinstated in service within four weeks, with the gap period between the judgment date and reinstatement considered for all other service benefits. The Court allowed the appeal, directing the parties to bear their own costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering factual findings of lower courts, especially in labor-related disputes, and emphasized the need for compelling reasons to overturn such findings in writ proceedings.