{"id":104562,"date":"2004-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004"},"modified":"2016-10-18T02:54:55","modified_gmt":"2016-10-17T21:24:55","slug":"the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"The Superintending Engineer vs Tmt.Sankupathy on 29 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Superintending Engineer vs Tmt.Sankupathy on 29 October, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 29.10.2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN\n\nC.M.A.No. 2934 of 2004\n\n\n1. The Superintending Engineer,\n   Mechanical-II,\n   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n   Mettur Thermal Power Station,\n   Mettur Dam-636 406,\n   Salem District.\n\n2. The Chief Engineer,\n   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n   Mettur Thermal Power Station,\n   Mettur Dam-636 406,\n   Salem District.                   ...             Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nTmt.Sankupathy                             ...               Respondent\n\n\n        Prayer :  Appeal against  the  award  dated  7.6.2004  passed  by  the\nCommissioner,  Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Salem)\nmade in W.C.No.141 of 2003.\n\n!For Appellant ::  Mr.S.Rajeswaran\n\n^For Respondent ::  ---\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nK.GOVINDARAJAN, J.)<\/p>\n
                The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has filed  the  above  appeal
\nunder  Sec.30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to
\nas ‘the Act’, questioning the order of  the  learned  Deputy  Commissioner  of
\nLabour,   Salem,   made   in   W.C.No.141\/2003,  dated  7.6.2004,  fixing  the
\ncompensation payable to the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  According to the claimant, one Ardhanari, who  was  working  under
\nthe appellants  died on 19.3.2000 when he was proceeding to work.  At the time
\nof his death, he was aged about 41 years and earning a  sum  of  Rs.4,229\/  as
\nmonthly salary.   On that basis, the claimant claimed a sum of R.2,50,000\/- as
\ncompensation.  The same was resisted by the appellants on the ground that  the
\ndeath  of  ;the  employee  was  not  due to the employment or in the course of
\nemployment and so the claim petition cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Learned Deputy Commissioner, Salem, relying on  various  decisions
\nheld  that the deceased employee died when he was proceeding to work which has
\nto be taken that he died in the course of employment and  so  the  respondents
\ntherein are  liable  to pay the compensation.  Questioning the same, the above
\nappeal is preferred.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Learned counsel  for  the  appellants  submitted  that  since  the
\nemployee  died  when  he  was  proceeding  to  work  and  not in the course of
\nemployment, it cannot be said that the death was due to the employment  or  in
\nthe course of employment.  The said submission cannot be countenanced.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The point for consideration in this case is:-\n<\/p>\n
“Whether  the  death  of the employee while he was proceeding to work could be
\nconstrued as the death caused in the course of employment?”\n<\/p>\n
        6.  To appreciate the issue, it  is  beneficial  to  extract  relevant
\nprovision, namely, Sec.3(1) of the Act, which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“3.   Employer’s liability for compensation:- (1) If personal injury is caused
\nto a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of  his  employment,
\nhis  employer  shall  be  liable  to  pay  compensation in accordance with the
\nprovisions of this Chapter:\n<\/p>\n
        Provided that the employer shall not be so liable –\n<\/p>\n
        (a) in respect of any injury which does not result  in  the  total  or
\npartial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days;\n<\/p>\n
        (b)  in  respect  of  any injury, not resulting in death, or permanent
\ntotal disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to –\n<\/p>\n
        (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of
\ndrink or drugs, or\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) the wilful disobedience of the  workman  to  an  order  expressly
\ngiven,  or  to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety
\nof workman, or\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the  workman  of  any  safety
\nguard  or  other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of
\nsecuring the safety of workman.”\n<\/p>\n
        7.  The expression “injury” under  Sec.3  of  the  Act  has  not  been
\ndefined in  the  Act but it is of wide import.  “personal injury” spoken to in
\nSec.3(1) of the Act may be leading to death or disablement  or  impairment  of
\nparts of the body and mind in either of which event, the employer is liable to
\npay  compensation  if  the  conditions  laid  down  in Sec.3(1) of the Act are
\nsatisfied.  The three conditions for attracting the provisions of Sec.3(1)  of
\nthe  Act are that death or injury must be caused to a workman; the said injury
\nmust have been caused by accident; and the accident must arise out of  and  in
\nthe course of employment.  It is well settled that if the injury or death from
\nthe  point of view of the workman who dies or suffers the injury is unexpected
\nor without design on his part, then the death or injury would be  by  accident
\nalthough  it  was  brought  about  by a heart attack or some other cause to be
\nfound in the condition of workman himself.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Though the Act has colonial origin, it is a legislation protecting
\nthe disabled workman without resting on the mercy or grace of the employer  by
\nway of  the  workman  continuing  in  service.    Since  the  Act is a welfare
\nlegislation,  it  is  expected  that  the  provisions  would  receive  liberal
\ninterpretation so as to advance the object and purpose of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   The  employer’s  liability  has been spelt out under Sec.3 of the
\nAct.  The words “arising out of and in the course of employment” are  the  key
\nwords mentioned in the said provision and the Courts have interpreted the same
\nelaborately.   The  distinction  between the two phrases as held by the Courts
\nthat the phrase “in the course of employment” suggests the point of time, that
\nis, the injury must be caused during the currency of employment,  whereas  the
\nother  expression  “out  of  employment” means that there must be some sort of
\nconnection between employment and injury caused to the workman as a result  of
\nthe accident.   There is no difficulty in accepting such interpretation of the
\nsaid  two  phrases,  but  to  the  modern  methods   of   working   industrial
\nundertakings,  such narrow interpretation does not satisfy their requirements,
\nas it is a difficult task to determine the exact  place  of  employment  of  a
\nworkman.   Therefore,  the  Courts  have  adopted  applying “the principles of
\nnotional extension  of  employer’s  premises”.    Applying  the   above   said
\nprinciple,  the  place of accident has to be construed as the place of duty of
\nthe workman concerned even if he had not reached the actual place of work.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In a case where the employer had permitted the workman to  travel
\nin  buses to go to his place of work and after his duty hours to his residence
\nand when the bus met with an accident as a result of  which  the  workman  was
\nthrown  out  of  road  and injured, the Apex Court in the decision in B.E.S.T.
\nUndertaking v.  Mrs.Agnes,<\/a> , AIR 1964  S.C.    193,  held  that  the  wife  is
\nentitled for  compensation.   To come to such conclusion, the Apex Court dealt
\nwith the case as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“(12) Under S.3(1) of the Act the injury must be caused to the workman  by  an
\naccident arising  out  of  and in the course of his employment.  The question,
\nwhen does an employment begin and when does it cease, depends upon  the  facts
\nof each  case.    But  the  Courts  have  agreed  that the employment does not
\nnecessarily end when the “down tool” signal  is  given  or  when  the  workman
\nleaves the actual workshop where he is working.  There is a notional extension
\nat both  the  entry  and  exit by time and space.  The scope of such extension
\nmust necessarily depend on the circumstances of a given case.   An  employment
\nmay  end  or may begin not only when the employee begins to work or leaves his
\ntools but also when he used the means of access and egress  to  and  from  the
\nplace of  employment.    A  contractual  duty  or obligation on the part of an
\nemployee to use only a particular means of transport extends the area of field
\nof employment to the course of the said transport.  Though  at  the  beginning
\nthe  word  “duty”  has  been  strictly  construed,  the  later  decisions have
\nliberalised this concept.  A theoretical option to take an  alternative  route
\nmay not detract from such a duty if the accepted one is of proved necessity or
\nof practical  compulsion.    But  none of the decisions cited at the Bar deals
\nwith a transport service operating over a large area like Bombay.    They  are
\ntherefore,  of  little  assistance,  except  in  so  far as they laid down the
\nprinciples of general application.  Indeed, some of the  Law  Lords  expressly
\nexcluded from the scope of their discussion cases where the exigencies of work
\ncompel an  employee  to  traverse public streets and other public places.  The
\nproblem that now arises before us is  a  novel  one  and  is  not  covered  by
\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n
(13) .. ..      ..\n<\/p>\n
(14) Bombay  is a city of distances.  The transport service practically covers
\nthe entire area of Greater Bombay.  Without the said right, it would  be  very
\ndifficult  for  a driver to sign on and sign off at the depots at the schedule
\ntimings, for he has to traverse a long distance.  But for this right, not only
\npunctuality and timings cannot be maintained, but  his  efficiency  will  also
\nsuffer.  D.W.1,  a  Traffic  Inspector  of  B.E.S.T.    Undertaking  says that
\ninstructions are given to all the drivers and conductors that they can  travel
\nin other buses.  This supports the practice of the drivers using the buses for
\ntheir from  home  to  the depot and vice versa.  Having regard to the class of
\nemployees it would be futile to suggest that they could as well  go  by  local
\nsuburban trains  or  by  walking.   The former, they could not afford, and the
\nlatter, having regard to the long distances involved would not be practicable.
\nAs the free transport is provided in the interest of service, having regard to
\nthe long distance a driver has to traverse to go to the depot from  his  house
\nand  vice  versa, the user of the said buses is a proved necessity giving rise
\nto an implied obligation on his part to travel in the said buses as a part  of
\nhis duty.   He is not exercising the right as a member of the public, but only
\nas one belonging to a service.  The entire Greater Bombay is the field or  the
\narea of  service  and  every  bus  is  an integrated part of the service.  The
\ndecisions relating to accidents occurring to  an  employee  in  a  factory  or
\npremises  belonging to the employer providing ingress or egress to the factory
\nare not of much relevance to a case where an employee has to  operate  over  a
\nlarger  area  in  a bus which is in itself is an integrated part of a fleet of
\nbuses operating in the entire area.  Though  the  doctrine  of  reasonable  or
\nnotional extension of employment developed in the context of specific workshop
\nfactories  or  harbours,  equally  applies to such a bus service, the doctrine
\nnecessarily will have to be adopted to meet its peculiar requirements.   While
\nin  a  case  of a factory, the premises of the employer which gives ingress or
\negress in the factory is a limited one,  in  the  case  of  a  city  transport
\nservice,  by  analogy,  the entire fleet of buses forming the service would be
\nthe “premises”.  An illustration may make out point clear.  Suppose,  in  view
\nof  the  long  distances to be covered by the employees, the Corporation, as a
\ncondition of service, provides a bus for collecting all the drivers from their
\nhouses so that they may reach their depots in time and to take them back after
\nthe day’s work so that after the heavy work till about 7 p.m., they may  reach
\ntheir houses  without further strain on their health.  Can it be said that the
\nsaid facility is not one given in the course of employment?  It  can  even  be
\nsaid  that  it is the duty of the employees, in the interest of the service to
\nutilize the said bus both for coming to the depot  and  going  back  to  their
\nhomes.   If that be so, what difference could it make if the employer, instead
\nof proving a separate bus, throws open his entire fleet of  buses  for  giving
\nthe employees  the said facility?  They are given that facility not as members
\nof the public but as employees; not  as  a  grace  but  as  of  right  because
\nefficiency of  the  service demands it.  We would, therefore, hold that when a
\ndriver when going home from the depot or coming to the depot uses the bus, any
\naccident that happens to him is an accident in the course of his employment.
\n(15) We, therefore, agree with the High Court that the  accident  occurred  to
\nNanau  Raman  during  the  course  of his employment and therefore his wife is
\nentitled to compensation.  No attempt was made to question the correctness  of
\nthe quantum of compensation fixed by the High Court.”\n<\/p>\n
        11.   Following  the  “notional extension principles” laid down in the
\nsaid decision while construing similar facts, the learned Judges of the Madhya
\nPradesh High Court in (1) Dudhiben Dharamshi v.    New  Jahangir  Vakil  Mills
\nLtd., 1976  A.C.J.    136,  (2) the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in
\nParvatiammal Dharmalingam v.  Divisional Supdt.  Central Railway,1988 ACJ 752,
\n(3) the learned Judge of the  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court  in  G.M.,  Western
\nRailway  v.Chandrabai,  1992  ACJ 496, and (4) the learned Judge of the Orissa
\nHigh Court in General Superintendent, Talcher Thermal Station v.  Bijuli Naik,
\n1994 ACJ 1054, held that if an employee sustained injury or death while he was
\nproceeding to work, it should be construed as the accident occurred during the
\ncourse of employment.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  In view of the well settled principles of  law,  we  are  of  the
\nopinion  that  the  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Labour  is  correct  in awarding
\ncompensation holding that the death of the employee occurred in the course  of
\nemployment.  Hence this appeal is dismissed.  No costs.  C.M.  P.No.16597\/2004
\nis also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
ns\/sks<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Superintending Engineer,
\nMechanical-II,
\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board,
\nMettur Thermal Power Station,
\nMettur Dam-636 406,
\nSalem District.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Chief Engineer,
\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board,
\nMettur Thermal Power Station,
\nMettur Dam-636 406,
\nSalem District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Superintending Engineer vs Tmt.Sankupathy on 29 October, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.10.2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN C.M.A.No. 2934 of 2004 1. The Superintending Engineer, Mechanical-II, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam-636 […]<\/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-104562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Superintending Engineer vs Tmt.Sankupathy on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Superintending Engineer vs Tmt.Sankupathy on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-17T21:24:55+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-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Superintending Engineer vs Tmt.Sankupathy on 29 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-17T21:24:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2239,\"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-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004\",\"name\":\"The Superintending Engineer vs Tmt.Sankupathy on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-17T21:24:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Superintending Engineer vs Tmt.Sankupathy on 29 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@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 Superintending Engineer vs Tmt.Sankupathy on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Superintending Engineer vs Tmt.Sankupathy on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-17T21:24:55+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-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Superintending Engineer vs Tmt.Sankupathy on 29 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-17T21:24:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004"},"wordCount":2239,"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-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004","name":"The Superintending Engineer vs Tmt.Sankupathy on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-17T21:24:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-tmt-sankupathy-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Superintending Engineer vs Tmt.Sankupathy on 29 October, 2004"}]},{"@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\/104562","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=104562"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104562\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}