{"id":100397,"date":"2008-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2"},"modified":"2017-11-09T18:33:14","modified_gmt":"2017-11-09T13:03:14","slug":"ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"Ramdayal vs The Principal on 6 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramdayal vs The Principal on 6 October, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n<pre>                                       1\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n                        NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR\n                     WRIT PETITION NO.249 OF 2005\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n    PETITIONER:\n              Ramdayal s\/o Sukhram Gudewar, aged about 40 years,\n              occ : Nil, r\/o Tirora, Tahsil Tirora, District : Gondia.\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                                   VERSUS\n    RESPONDENT:\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n              The Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Tirora, Tahsil\n              Tirora, District : Gondia.\n                              \n                             \n    Advocate I.N. Choudhari, for petitioner\n    A.G.P. T.R. Kankale for respondents\n    ===================================\n           \n\n\n    CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>    DATE: 6.10.2008<br \/>\n    ORAL JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>              Heard Advocate Choudhari for petitioner and learned<br \/>\n    A.G.P. for respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>              Only argument of Advocate Choudhari is that though<\/p>\n<p>    Industrial Court in impugned order dated 20.9.2004 found<br \/>\n    everything in favour of petitioner, it has remanded the matter back<br \/>\n    to Labour Court to enable respondent\/ employer to fill in lacuna.<br \/>\n    He points out that Labour Court has in terms found that section 25-<br \/>\n    F was complied with and therefore dismissed ULP Complaint filed<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                        ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 13:56:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    by the petitioner. Industrial Court did not agree with those findings<\/p>\n<p>    and found the story of employer about compliance with provisions<br \/>\n    of Section 25-F to be incorrect. Still it has remanded the matter<\/p>\n<p>    back.\n<\/p>\n<p>    2]         Learned A.G.P. in reply states that considering the<\/p>\n<p>    position of respondent as Government Officer, the Industrial Court<br \/>\n    found it proper to enable to government to place necessary material<\/p>\n<p>    before Labour Court. He contends that it cannot be ignored that<br \/>\n    petitioner was Daily Wager and in view of specific defence that<\/p>\n<p>    retrenchment notice was prepared and was sought to be served on<\/p>\n<p>    him on 1.8.2000, that amount of compensation was also kept ready,<br \/>\n    learned Member of Industrial Court noticed that if these facts were<br \/>\n    true, respondent did not examine its Accountant. According to him,<\/p>\n<p>    realising the difficulties which the government faces, Industrial<\/p>\n<p>    Court found it proper to give one more opportunity respondent to<br \/>\n    lead proper evidence and this court should not interfere in writ<br \/>\n    jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>    3]         In the alternate learned A.G.P. relies upon Judgment<br \/>\n    reported in 2008 Vol. 1 SCC 575 [ and (2006) 6 SCC Page<\/p>\n<p>    221[Reserve Bank of India ..vs.. Gopinath Sharma &amp; another] to<br \/>\n    urge that daily wager has no right to post and his termination does<br \/>\n    not amount to retrenchment and as such even if there is technical<br \/>\n    valuation of section 25-F that by itself is not sufficient to grant<br \/>\n    employee the relief of reinstatement with continuity and back-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                     ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 13:56:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    wages.\n<\/p>\n<p>    4]          In facts before me it is not in dispute that the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>    was appointed on daily wages as per order dated 1.4.1998 and he<br \/>\n    continued in service till his retrenchment on 1.8.2000. Petitioner<br \/>\n    has stated that though the order of appointment is dated 4.1.1998<\/p>\n<p>    he was in service from 1.9.1997. Thus the service period of<br \/>\n    petitioner even as per his contention is from 1.9.1997 to 4.9.2000<\/p>\n<p>    i.e. date on which he received retrenchment order. Said period is of<br \/>\n    ab out 3 years. In view of the judgment of Hon. Apex Court in the<\/p>\n<p>    case of Government of Andhra Pradesh ..vs.. K. Brahmanandam &amp;<\/p>\n<p>    others reported in 2008 Vol. 5 SCC 241 and also Telephone District<br \/>\n    Manager &amp; others ..vs.. Keshab Deb &#8211; 2008 LAB. I. C. 2615(S.C.)<br \/>\n    and Jaipur Development Authority ..vs.. Ram Sahai and another &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>    2006 AIR SCW 5963. it is apparent that termination of services of a<\/p>\n<p>    daily wager does not amount to retrenchment and for violation of<br \/>\n    section 25-F in such circumstances, the employee can not be given<br \/>\n    benefit of reinstatement with continuity and back-wages. Hon. Apex<\/p>\n<p>    Court has held that in such circumstances employee is entitled to<br \/>\n    benefit of compensation only. Therefore, even if argument of Mr.<br \/>\n    Choudhari that Industrial Could not have permitted respondents to<\/p>\n<p>    fill in lacuna is accepted, I find that at the end of the trial in ULP<br \/>\n    complaint     the   petitioner    becomes    entitled    for     grant      of<br \/>\n    compensation only. Considering the fact that his daily wage was<br \/>\n    Rs.45\/- roughly, it is clear that he was not earning more than<br \/>\n    Rs.1400\/- per month. He has put in about 3 years of service and<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                       ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 13:56:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    hence I find it proper to give him salary of one year as<\/p>\n<p>    compensation. Accordingly the petitioner be given compensation of<br \/>\n    Rs.15000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>    5]          In view of this position, the order of Industrial Court<br \/>\n    remanding the matter is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is<\/p>\n<p>    partly allowed and petitioner is held entitled to and granted<br \/>\n    compensation of Rs.15000\/-. The amount be paid to him over and<\/p>\n<p>    above retrenchment compensation and notice pay if not already<br \/>\n    received by him. Entire i.e. total amount be paid by 31.3.2009 and<\/p>\n<p>    if it is not so paid, he shall be entitled to recover the amount due to<\/p>\n<p>    him with 7% interest from today till realization. Rule accordingly.<br \/>\n    No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>    smp.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                       ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 13:56:44 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court Ramdayal vs The Principal on 6 October, 2008 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.249 OF 2005 PETITIONER: Ramdayal s\/o Sukhram Gudewar, aged about 40 years, occ : Nil, r\/o Tirora, Tahsil Tirora, District : Gondia. VERSUS RESPONDENT: The Principal, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100397","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ramdayal vs The Principal on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramdayal vs The Principal on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-09T13:03:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramdayal vs The Principal on 6 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T13:03:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":715,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2\",\"name\":\"Ramdayal vs The Principal on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T13:03:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramdayal vs The Principal on 6 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramdayal vs The Principal on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramdayal vs The Principal on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-09T13:03:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramdayal vs The Principal on 6 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T13:03:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2"},"wordCount":715,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2","name":"Ramdayal vs The Principal on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T13:03:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdayal-vs-the-principal-on-6-october-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramdayal vs The Principal on 6 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100397","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=100397"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100397\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100397"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100397"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}