TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC Reinstates Job for Divorced Land-Loser's Family Member, Emphasizes Respect for Lower Court's Facts in Labor Disputes.</h1> <h3>GANAPATI BHIKARAO NAIK Versus NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED</h3> GANAPATI BHIKARAO NAIK Versus NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED - 2024 INSC 871 Issues:1. Legality of judgment setting aside an award2. Validity of job secured by appellant as a family member of a land-loserAnalysis: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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
