{"id":104020,"date":"2005-04-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-04-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005"},"modified":"2015-03-21T11:33:20","modified_gmt":"2015-03-21T06:03:20","slug":"the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005","title":{"rendered":"The Management Of vs S. Rajulu on 18 April, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Management Of vs S. Rajulu on 18 April, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OOF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 18\/04\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. KRISHNAN  \n\nWrit Appeal No. 491 of 2001\nand \nC.M.P.No. 3910 of 2001 \n\nThe Management of  \nAurofood Private Limited,\nAuroville-605 101. .. Appellant\/First Respondent.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.S. Rajulu,        .. Petitioner.\n\n2. The Presiding Officer,\n   Labour Court, Cuddalore. .. 2nd Respondent.\n                                      .. Respondents.\n\n\n        Writ  Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against order of\nSingle Judge dated 9-2-2001 in Writ Petition No.  69 of 1994.\n\n!Mr.  S.  Ravindran for M\/s.  T.S.  Gopalan:- For\nAppellant.\n\n^Mr.  N.G.R.  Prasad for M\/s.  Row and Reddy:-\nFor 1st Respondent. \n\n\n:JUDGEMENT    \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgement of the Court was delivered by P.  Sathasivam, J.,)<\/p>\n<p>        The Management of Aurofood Private Limited, aggrieved by the order  of<br \/>\nthe learned  Single  Judge  dated  9-2-2001,  made in Writ Petition No.  69 of<br \/>\n1994, has filed the above Writ Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Brief facts which are required for the  disposal  of  this  Appeal<br \/>\nalone are stated hereunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>First respondent herein was employed as a packer in the packing department  of<br \/>\nappellant biscuit factory from 6-4-1974.  While so, in 1981 he was served with<br \/>\ntwo charge memos.  The first charge memo dated 28-4-1981 relates to misconduct<br \/>\nthat  he  was  found eating biscuits while he was packing the biscuits and the<br \/>\nsecond charge memo dated 1 1-8-1981 is that he had abused  his  supervisor  in<br \/>\nfilthy language.    It  is not in dispute that an enquiry was conducted on the<br \/>\nsaid charges  and  ultimately  he  was  found  guilty  of  both  the  charges.<br \/>\nThereafter,  the management issued a show cause notice on 13-10-1981 proposing<br \/>\nto dismiss him from  service  to  which  he  submitte  d  his  explanation  on<br \/>\n19-10-1981.   The  management not satisfied with his explanation dismissed him<br \/>\nfrom service by order dated 5-11-1981.  Aggrieved by  the  same,  the  workman<br \/>\nraised an  industrial  dispute  in  I.D.No.    41\/92  before the Labour Court,<br \/>\nCuddalore\/2nd respondent herein.  By award dated 30-3-1993, the  Labour  Court<br \/>\nupheld  the  order  of  dismissal  dated  5-11-1981 and confirmed the order of<br \/>\ndismissal.  Questioning the same, the  workman  preferred  Writ  Petition  No.<br \/>\n69\/94 before  the  learned Single Judge of this Court.  By the impugned order,<br \/>\nthe learned Judge, after finding that though the management took  the  records<br \/>\nof  past  service  into  account for the purpose of imposing the punishment of<br \/>\ndismissal, no opportunity was given to him, set aside the order  of  dismissal<\/p>\n<p>and  ordered reinstatement with back wages except for the period of delay of 3<br \/>\nyears with continuity of service etc.  Questioning the  same,  the  management<br \/>\nhas filed the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<pre>        3.  Heard Mr.       S.      Ravindran,   learned   counsel   for   the\nappellant-management; and Mr.  N.G.R.    Prasad,  learned  counsel  for  first\nrespondent-workman.  \n\n<\/pre>\n<p>        4.  There is no dispute that in respect of two charges leveled against<br \/>\nthe  workman,  an  enquiry  was conducted and ultimately both the charges were<br \/>\nfound proved and after notice to him, he was dismissed from service.    Though<br \/>\nat  this  stage  there  is  no  need to go into the details regarding charges,<br \/>\nhowever, considering the gravity of the punishment, namely, dismissal,  it  is<br \/>\ndesirable to  refer both the charges.  The charges relate to that on 24-4-1981<br \/>\nwhile he was on duty at about  9-10  A.M.    the  workman  was  found  sitting<br \/>\nleisurely, eating  biscuits  near  the  packing  material stores.  When he was<br \/>\nquestioned by the supervisor, he abused him in filthy  language.    The  exact<br \/>\ncharges  are reproduced in pages 18 and 19 of the typed-set of papers filed by<br \/>\nthe counsel for the appellant and we also verified the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  Now let us consider the order of dismissal dated 5-11-81.  At this<br \/>\njuncture, Mr.  N.G.R.  Prasad, learned counsel for the workman, by drawing our<br \/>\nattention to the fact that the workman being a  last  grade  servant,  namely,<br \/>\npacker  working  in  the  packing  department,  was  unable  to understand the<br \/>\nmaterials placed and the procedure that was followed in the enquiry, requested<br \/>\nthe management to furnish required materials in the  language  known  to  him,<br \/>\nnamely, in  Tamil.  It is also brought to our notice that the workman has made<br \/>\na specific request for supply of relevant materials in Tamil  language.    The<br \/>\ncommunication  of the management shows that his request was not acceded to and<br \/>\nthe fact remains that the workman was not given  relevant  materials\/documents<br \/>\nin the language  known  to him.  According to Mr.  Prasad, that was the reason<br \/>\nthat the workman did not send explanation to the second show cause notice till<br \/>\nfinal order passed on 5-11-1981.  We also verified the grievance expressed  by<br \/>\nthe workman seeking required materials in Tamil language and the intimation of<br \/>\nthe management  declining  his  request  and we are satisfied that Mr.  N.G.R.<br \/>\nPrasad is right  in  contending  that  the  workman  was  not  given  adequate<br \/>\nopportunity to put-forth his defence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  Though Mr.      S.      Ravindran,   learned   counsel   for   the<br \/>\nappellant-management,  contended  that  the  management  has  not  taken  into<br \/>\nconsideration  the past service records and the outcome of two charges leveled<br \/>\nagainst him alone were sufficient and accordingly  the  management  passed  an<br \/>\norder dismissing  him  from  service.  On going through the order of dismissal<br \/>\ndated 5-11-81, we are unable to accept  the  said  contention,  since  in  the<br \/>\npenultimate  paragraph  it  is  stated that, &#8220;This order of dismissal has been<br \/>\npassed after  having  taken  into  account  the  gravity  of  the  misconducts<br \/>\ncommitted  by  you  and  your antecedents and other extenuating and aggravated<br \/>\ncircumstances&#8221;.  As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge,  though  the<br \/>\nmanagement  has  considered  the  antecedents  of  the  workman, absolutely no<br \/>\ndetails have been furnished and the same were not put on notice to the workman<br \/>\nin order to  making  effective  representation  in  respect  of  the  proposed<br \/>\npunishment.   As  rightly stated, mere reference to the past record of service<br \/>\nwould not satisfy\/comply the principles of natural justice.  It is  true  that<br \/>\nthe  management  is  free  to impose appropriate punishment even on a solitary<br \/>\nincident, but as correctly observed by the learned Judge,  if  the  management<br \/>\nrefers  to  the  antecedents  or  past  record  of  service  while  inflicting<br \/>\npunishment, it is but proper for them to see that opportunity was given to the<br \/>\nworkman to make his case\/ defence  over  his  past  record  of  service  while<br \/>\nimposing major punishment of dismissal.  Though the Labour Court has failed to<br \/>\nconsider  the said aspect, the same was rightly considered and accepted by the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge and we are in agreement with the said conclusion.  Though<br \/>\nMr.  S.  Ravindran, learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon a  decision<br \/>\nof the Apex  Court  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/344379\/\">N.T.C (WBAB &amp; O) Ltd., v.  Anjan K.  Saha,<\/a> reported in<br \/>\n2004 (4) CTC 455, on going through the factual details, we  are  of  the  view<br \/>\nthat the same is not applicable to the case on hand.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that<br \/>\nthe  workman  has  not  raised  the  plea,  namely,  that  he was not afforded<br \/>\nopportunity with regard to past record of service.  By relying on  a  decision<br \/>\nof the  Supreme  Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/445209\/\">Municipal Committee Tauru v.  Harpal Singh,<\/a> reported<br \/>\nin (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 6 35, the counsel would contend that  even  in<br \/>\nlabour  matters there must be a specific plea or defence and in the absence of<br \/>\nthe same, no relevance can be granted by the Court.  According to  him,  there<br \/>\nis no  such  plea in the claim petition filed by the workman.  It is true that<br \/>\nin the said decision, Their Lordships have held that even in labour matters  a<br \/>\nclaimant  goes  before  the  Court  or Tribunal with a case and it is upon the<br \/>\nmerits of that case that relief is to be granted or  refused  to  him.    They<br \/>\nfurther  held  that there is no substantial justice when the Court or Tribunal<br \/>\ngives relief to a workman which is on a basis that is totally contrary to  the<br \/>\nbasis upon which he approached it; which, indeed is the employer&#8217;s case.  They<br \/>\nalso  held  that  substantial justice must be done both to the employer and he<br \/>\nemployees.  Though specific plea was not taken, but  if  we  read  the  entire<br \/>\nclaim  petition, we are able to see the grievance of the petitioner and we are<br \/>\nsatisfied that such objection has been taken though not directly,  accordingly<br \/>\nthe said decision is also not helpful to the appellant&#8217;s case.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   The learned counsel for the appellant by relying on a decision of<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1769044\/\">N.  Karunakaran  v.    P.O.,  Labour<br \/>\nCourt,<\/a> reported  in 2000 (1) L.L.N.  299, would contend that since the workman<br \/>\nwas given adequate opportunity at the time of enquiry, the management is right<br \/>\nin considering his antecedents while  passing  the  order  of  dismissal.    A<br \/>\nperusal  of  the  said  decision  shows that the management before the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge had  chosen  to  lead  evidence  before  the  Labour  Court  with<br \/>\nreference  to  the  past  conduct  of  the  workman  and the workman had ample<br \/>\nopportunity to cross-examine the witness who was examined  on  behalf  of  the<br \/>\ncompany with  reference  to  the  past  conduct  of  the  workman.   In such a<br \/>\ncircumstance, the learned Single Judge has arrived at a  conclusion  that  the<br \/>\nsubmission that the past conduct of the workman was taken into account without<br \/>\naffording  an  opportunity  to  the petitioner as the witness who was examined<br \/>\nbefore  the  Labour  Court  and  the  petitioner  had   the   opportunity   to<br \/>\ncross-examine the witness and the Labour Court has found that the past conduct<br \/>\nof  the  petitioner  was  proved  by  the  evidence  let  in  on behalf of the<br \/>\nmanagement.  While agreeing with the proposition of law, the factual  position<br \/>\nin  our  case  differs  since we have already referred to the grievance of the<br \/>\nworkman that he was not given materials in the language known to  him  and  he<br \/>\nbeing  a last grade servant, it cannot be construed that he was given adequate<br \/>\nopportunity, as provided in the case before the  learned  Judge;  accordingly,<br \/>\nthe said decision is not helpful to the appellant&#8217;s case.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  Finally, Mr.    S.   Ravindran by relying on a latest judgement of<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/730146\/\">Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., v.  N.B.  Narawade,<\/a>  reported<br \/>\nin  (2005)  3  Supreme Court Cases 134, would contend that in view of the fact<br \/>\nthat one of the charges namely, use of filthy language  to  his  superior  has<br \/>\nbeen  proved,  the  management  is  justified  in  imposing  the punishment of<br \/>\ndismissal.  In the reported decision, it is seen (para  9)  that  the  workman<br \/>\nconcerned had been charge sheeted several times earlier and on every such case<br \/>\nof   misconduct,  the  management  took  a  lenient  view  and  imposed  minor<br \/>\npunishments.  It is further  seen  that  on  6-9-1988  the  said  workman  had<br \/>\nassaulted  his  co-worker  with  a galvanized pipe weighing about 2 Kg causing<br \/>\ngrievous injury.  Even in such a  situation,  the  workman  therein  was  only<br \/>\npunished with  suspension  of  four  days.    In  the  last incident, when his<br \/>\nsupervisor asked him to do a particular job which was  entrusted  to  him,  he<br \/>\nallegedly  told the supervisor to call the Engineer-in-charge so that he could<br \/>\ntalk to him rather  than  the  supervisor  and  when  the  Engineer  came  and<br \/>\nrequested  him  to  carry  on  with the work, he abused the supervisor in very<br \/>\nfilthy language in the presence of his subordinates  and  later  on  when  the<br \/>\nEngineer  went back to his cabin he followed him to the cabin and again abused<br \/>\nhim in the presence of a member of the labour union in  similar  language  and<br \/>\neven threatened  him.  In those circumstances, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court while<br \/>\ndisagreeing with the labour court and the High  Court,  upheld  the  order  of<br \/>\ndismissal imposed  by  the  management.   In the case on hand, we have already<br \/>\nreferred to the charges leveled against the workman.  The first one is that he<br \/>\nwas eating biscuits while doing the work of packing biscuits and the next  one<br \/>\nis when the same was questioned by his supervisor, the workman replied that he<br \/>\n(supervisor) also  committed  the  same  on several occasions.  In the case on<br \/>\nhand, the person questioned is a supervisor and the way in which  the  workman<br \/>\nreplied  shows  that  the  supervisor was also in the habit of eating biscuits<br \/>\nduring working hours and that was the reason which  provoked  the  workman  to<br \/>\nreply harshly  questioning  the  conduct  of  his  supervisor.    We must also<br \/>\nconsider the above referred surrounding circumstances that the  workman  being<br \/>\nilliterate last   grade   servant  (packer).    All  these  aspects  including<br \/>\nsurrounding circumstances have been rightly taken note by  the  learned  Judge<br \/>\nwhile considering  the  punishment  inflicted on him.  After analyzing all the<br \/>\ndetails, we are satisfied that the case before the Supreme Court is very harsh<br \/>\nwhich made the Supreme Court in confirming the order of  dismissal.    In  the<br \/>\nlight  of  our  discussion,  and  the  factual  details  which we have already<br \/>\nreferred to, the  same  rigor  may  not  be  applied  to  the  case  on  hand;<br \/>\naccordingly  the  said  decision is also distinguishable and not applicable to<br \/>\nthe case on hand.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  We are satisfied that the learned Judge has  considered  all  the<br \/>\nmaterials,  including the surrounding circumstances while interfering with the<br \/>\norder of the Labour Court.  As rightly observed by the learned  Judge,  though<br \/>\nthe  Labour  Court  is  vested with the power to interfere with the punishment<br \/>\nunder Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the same has not been<br \/>\nconsidered and the learned Judge after finding that there is  a  violation  of<br \/>\nnatural  justice, considering the surrounding circumstances, the workman being<br \/>\nan illiterate last grade servant (packer) and of the fact that the  punishment<br \/>\nof  dismissal  shocks  the conscience of the Court, rightly interfered and set<br \/>\naside the order of dismissal and ordered reinstatement with back wages.  It is<br \/>\nalso relevant to mention  that  taking  note  of  the  delay  of  3  years  in<br \/>\napproaching  the  Labour  Court, the learned Judge has rightly dis-allowed the<br \/>\nback wages for a period of 3 years.    We  are  in  agreement  with  both  the<br \/>\nconclusions  of the learned Judge and there is no merit in the appeal filed by<br \/>\nthe management; accordingly the Writ Appeal fails and the same  is  dismissed.<br \/>\nNo costs.  Connected C.M.P.  is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.B.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:- Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>Internet:- Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>To:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Management Of vs S. Rajulu on 18 April, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OOF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 18\/04\/2005 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice S.K. KRISHNAN Writ Appeal No. 491 of 2001 and C.M.P.No. 3910 of 2001 The Management of Aurofood Private Limited, Auroville-605 [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-104020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Management Of vs S. Rajulu on 18 April, 2005 - 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\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Management Of vs S. Rajulu on 18 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-21T06:03:20+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Management Of vs S. Rajulu on 18 April, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-21T06:03:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2251,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005\",\"name\":\"The Management Of vs S. Rajulu on 18 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-21T06:03:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Management Of vs S. Rajulu on 18 April, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"The Management Of vs S. Rajulu on 18 April, 2005 - 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\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Management Of vs S. Rajulu on 18 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-21T06:03:20+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Management Of vs S. Rajulu on 18 April, 2005","datePublished":"2005-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-21T06:03:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005"},"wordCount":2251,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005","name":"The Management Of vs S. Rajulu on 18 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-21T06:03:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-s-rajulu-on-18-april-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Management Of vs S. Rajulu on 18 April, 2005"}]},{"@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\/104020","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=104020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104020\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}