{"id":102209,"date":"2010-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-10T17:48:25","modified_gmt":"2016-11-10T12:18:25","slug":"deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Deputy vs Babubhai on 28 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Deputy vs Babubhai on 28 July, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/2015\/2001\t 4\/ 4\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No.  2015 of 2001\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No.13000 of 2003\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No.13995 of 2003\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No.    873 of 2004\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No.  1372 of 2004\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8371 of 2004\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nDEPUTY\nEXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nBABUBHAI\nBARSIBHAI GAMIT C\/O SURAT LABOUR UNION - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \n IN\nS.C.A. No.2015\/2001\n: MR JV BHAIRAVIA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nRULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 28\/07\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tAll<br \/>\nthese petitions involve common questions on law and facts and<br \/>\ntherefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tIn<br \/>\nthese petitions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned awards<br \/>\npassed by the Courts below, whereby, they have directed to place the<br \/>\nconcerned workmen on time-scale, having completed 180 days of service<br \/>\nand to grant other ancillary benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nissued involved in this petition is covered by a decision of this<br \/>\nCourt rendered in S.C.A. No.393\/2000 dated 27.01.2000, which reads as<br \/>\nunder;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;1.\t   This is a  petition  under  Article  227  of  the<br \/>\n       Constitution of India though styled as one under Articles<br \/>\n      14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.\t   Before  proceeding  further  on the merits of the<br \/>\n      matter it is desirable to keep in mind  the  observations<br \/>\n      of  the  Supreme  Court  in the case of Mohmmad Yunus Vs.<br \/>\n      Mohammad Mustaqim (AIR 1984 SC 38) and Khali Ahmed Bashir<br \/>\n      Vs.  Tufelhussein S.  Sarangpurwala (AIR 1988 SC 184), on<br \/>\n      the question of the scope and ambit of  the  jurisdiction<br \/>\n      of  this  Court  in  the context of the powers which this<br \/>\n      Court may exercise under Article 227 of the Constitution.<br \/>\n      The Supreme Court has observed in the aforesaid two cases<br \/>\n      that the High Court, while  examining  a  petition  under<br \/>\n      Article   227   of  the  Constitution  of  India,  cannot<br \/>\n      reappreciate the evidence and cannot disturb the findings<br \/>\n      of fact recorded by the courts  below  except  where  the<br \/>\n      same  are  perverse,  and  even  errors  of law cannot be<br \/>\n      corrected.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.\tThe  only  contention  raised  herein  is  in the<br \/>\n      context of the observations and findings recorded by  the<br \/>\n      Industrial  Tribunal, that in paragraph 7 of the impugned<br \/>\n      judgement,  the  Tribunal  has  interpreted  the  earlier<br \/>\n      settlement  dated 23rd November 1984, and in that context<br \/>\n      found that those persons who find a place on  the  select<br \/>\n      list  of  daily  wagers  who  have been given work in the<br \/>\n      place of workmen  appointed  on  a  regularly  sanctioned<br \/>\n      post, and where such daily wagers have put in 180 days as<br \/>\n      specified  in  the  said  settlement will be taken on the<br \/>\n      regular time scale.  The petitioner had occasion to  file<br \/>\n      the  reference  since  he  was  not  given the benefit of<br \/>\n      regular time scale although, according  to  him,  he  was<br \/>\n      qualified.     The   Labour   Court,   therefore,   after<br \/>\n      interpreting the said  settlement  and  in  view  of  the<br \/>\n      undisputed facts on record, allowed the reference.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.\tIt is pertinent to note that neither side has led<br \/>\n      any oral evidence and that the respondent Corporation has<br \/>\n      not  produced  any  documentary  evidence  whatsoever  as<br \/>\n      regards the attendance of the workman.  On the other hand<br \/>\n      the workman had filed Exh.6  in  the  list  of  documents<br \/>\n      pertaining to his attendance.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.\tThere  is  no  dispute  that  the  workman  was a<br \/>\n      reliever watchman and that he has been  working  as  such<br \/>\n      for over  20  years.   The Tribunal found on the facts of<br \/>\n      the case that he has  put  in  more  than  180  days  and<br \/>\n      therefore at least this condition is satisfied.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.\tThe  only  contention raised before me by learned<br \/>\n      counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal  has  not<br \/>\n      considered the other conditions imposed by the settlement<br \/>\n      under reference  viz.   that the workman should have been<br \/>\n      on the select list, and that he should have been assigned<br \/>\n      for work against persons on  regularly  sanctioned  post.<br \/>\n      It   may  be  that  the  Tribunal  has  not  specifically<br \/>\n      discussed this issue for  the  simple  reason  that  this<br \/>\n      contention  was not raised before it in the present form.<br \/>\n      However,  from  the  discussion  found  in  the  impugned<br \/>\n      judgement  and  award  it  becomes obvious that the basic<br \/>\n      facts pertaining to these questions were not in  dispute.<br \/>\n      It  was  not  in  dispute that the workman was a reliever<br \/>\n      watchman, and that he was being assigned work as and when<br \/>\n      necessary, when the regular watchman was  not  available.<br \/>\n      It  has never been the petitioner&#8217;s case that the workman<br \/>\n      was not assigned work in the place of a  person  who  was<br \/>\n      not a  regular  employee.   Both the sides have taken the<br \/>\n      situation  for  granted,  and  the  entire   matter   was<br \/>\n      contested  before  the  Tribunal  on  the  basis that the<br \/>\n      regular  watchmen,  on  account  of  whose  absence  such<br \/>\n      reliever watchman came to be employed, were employees who<br \/>\n      were regular employees in a regular time scale.  Secondly<br \/>\n      it  was  never  a  specific case put up by the petitioner<br \/>\n      before the Tribunal  that  the  workman&#8217;s  name  did  not<br \/>\n      figure on the list of such reliever watchmen who would be<br \/>\n      offered employment  as  and when required.  It is obvious<br \/>\n      that a  select  list,  in  the  context  of  the  present<br \/>\n      circumstances,  could  only  mean  a  select list of such<br \/>\n      casual workmen who would be offered work when the regular<br \/>\n      employees in the regular time-scale happen to be  absent.<br \/>\n      Thus,  the  list  of  such daily wagers or a list of such<br \/>\n      casual workmen would be the select list in the context of<br \/>\n      the relevant clause (clause  20)  of  the  settlement  in<br \/>\n      question  which has been discussed and relied upon in the<br \/>\n      impugned judgement and award.\n<\/p>\n<p>      6.\tThe Tribunal has also referred to and relied upon<br \/>\n      an  earlier  judgement  and  award   delivered   by   the<br \/>\n      Industrial  Tribunal, Rajkot cited in paragraph 10 of the<br \/>\n      present judgement and  award,  and  noted  that  32  such<br \/>\n      reliever-watchmen have been granted a regular time-scale,<br \/>\n      and  that  the  said  award  has  been implemented by the<br \/>\n      petitioner Corporation.  In the light of this  fact  viz.<br \/>\n      that  32  such  reliever  watchmen  have  been  granted a<br \/>\n      regular time-scale, the Tribunal  had  occasion  to  note<br \/>\n      that  the  Corporation has made no submission whatsoever.<br \/>\n      Thus, if the petitioner Corporation has chosen to grant a<br \/>\n      regular time scale to 32 such  reliever  watchmen,  based<br \/>\n      upon  the earlier Award referred to hereinabove, there is<br \/>\n      no reason why the present respondent workman  should  not<br \/>\n      have been granted the same benefit.\n<\/p>\n<p>      7.\tIn  the premises aforesaid, there is no substance<br \/>\n      in the present  petition  and  the  same  is,  therefore,<br \/>\n      summarily dismissed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe<br \/>\naforesaid order was challenged in L.P.A. No.905\/2000. However, the<br \/>\nsame came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2001. Against the<br \/>\nsaid order, S.L.P. (Civil) No.12607\/2001 was filed before the Apex<br \/>\nCourt, which, also came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated<br \/>\n10.08.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above, this group of petitions also stand rejected. Rule<br \/>\nis discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n<p>[K.S.\n<\/p>\n<p>JHAVERI, J.]\t\t<\/p>\n<p>Pravin\/*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Deputy vs Babubhai on 28 July, 2010 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2015\/2001 4\/ 4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2015 of 2001 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.13000 of 2003 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.13995 of 2003 With SPECIAL [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-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>Deputy vs Babubhai on 28 July, 2010 - 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\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deputy vs Babubhai on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-10T12:18:25+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Deputy vs Babubhai on 28 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-10T12:18:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1042,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Deputy vs Babubhai on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-10T12:18:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deputy vs Babubhai on 28 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Deputy vs Babubhai on 28 July, 2010 - 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\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deputy vs Babubhai on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-10T12:18:25+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Deputy vs Babubhai on 28 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-10T12:18:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010"},"wordCount":1042,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010","name":"Deputy vs Babubhai on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-10T12:18:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-babubhai-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deputy vs Babubhai on 28 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/102209","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=102209"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102209\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102209"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}