{"id":109742,"date":"2008-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-09-24T22:51:16","modified_gmt":"2018-09-24T17:21:16","slug":"umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Umeshsing vs S.G.S on 13 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Umeshsing vs S.G.S on 13 August, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.M.Thaker,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/10381\/2008\t 9\/ 9\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. 10381 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER\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 be\n\t\t\treferred 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 civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nUMESHSING\nSANJAYSING - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nS.G.S.\nINDIA LIMITED - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nTR MISHRA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNone 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 K.M.THAKER\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 13\/08\/2008  \n \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nthis petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated<br \/>\n29.10.2007 passed by the labour court, Jamnagar in recovery<br \/>\napplication No.61 of 2000  whereby the labour court has rejected the<br \/>\nrecovery application preferred by the present petitioner. Being<br \/>\naggrieved by the said order dated 29.10.2007, the petitioner is<br \/>\nbefore this court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner approached the labour court by way of above referred<br \/>\nrecovery application with a claim that during tenure of his<br \/>\nemployment with the respondent, he was made to work overtime everyday<br \/>\nand that he was required to put in work for almost 12 hours i.e. from<br \/>\n9.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. or 11.00 p.m. everyday and the respondent was<br \/>\nnot making payment for the said overtime work at double rate of his<br \/>\nnormal wages. Therefore, the petitioner preferred the said recovery<br \/>\napplication for claiming the payment of overtime work allegedly put<br \/>\nin by him during tenure of his employment with the respondent. As per<br \/>\nthe discussion in the award, it transpires that the petitioner<br \/>\nclaimed Rs.48,718.85 towards unpaid amount of overtime wages for the<br \/>\nperiod from December, 1993 to December, 1996. For such claim, the<br \/>\npetitioner preferred the recovery application in 2000. After<br \/>\nconsidering the application, the evidence of the petitioner and the<br \/>\nrespondent and the scope of section 33C(2) as well as the material<br \/>\navailable on record, the labour court rejected the recovery<br \/>\napplication for diverse reasons including the reason that in its<br \/>\nview, based on the evidence available on record, the petitioner had<br \/>\nfailed to establish his claim and that the claim made by the<br \/>\npetitioner was outside the scope of section 33C(2). The labour court<br \/>\nalso found that the claim and conduct of the petitioner was not<br \/>\nacceptable because the petitioner had come out with the claim after<br \/>\nhaving tendered resignation and cessation of his employment pursuant<br \/>\nto availing benefit under VRS. The labour court also arrived at the<br \/>\nconclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove his allegation and<br \/>\nassertions in establishing his claim. Upon such findings, the labour<br \/>\ncourt rejected the recovery application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mishra appears for the petitioner. At the outset, he submitted that<br \/>\nin view of the legal position settled by virtue of the recent<br \/>\njudgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court, it is true that the nature of<br \/>\nclaim, which was made by the petitioner before the labour court,<br \/>\nwould not be maintainable and would not fall within the purview of<br \/>\nsection 33C(2), however, recently the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court has referred<br \/>\nthe issue of scope of section 33C(2) to the Larger Bench. He further<br \/>\nsubmitted that the claim of the petitioner was that he was paid at<br \/>\nthe rate of Re.1\/- for the overtime work and that he had asked for<br \/>\nproduction of certain documents however the same were not produced on<br \/>\nthe ground that the said documents were not available since the<br \/>\ndemand for production of documents was for such documents which<br \/>\nhappened to be 7 to 10 years old and that therefore, the petitioner<br \/>\ncould not establish his claim and assertions in absence of those<br \/>\ndocuments, which the respondent corporation did not produce. Mr.<br \/>\nMishra also submitted that the labour court has erred in rejecting<br \/>\nthe recovery application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFrom<br \/>\ndetail examination of the order of the labour court, it comes out<br \/>\nthat the labour court has not rejected the recovery application<br \/>\nmerely on the ground of limited scope of section 33-C(2). In fact,<br \/>\nthe labour court has gone into the details of all the contentions,<br \/>\nwhich were raised by the petitioner before it and has recorded its<br \/>\nfindings of fact on each of the grounds and all the findings of fact<br \/>\nare against  the   petitioner.  During his submission, Mr. Mishra has<br \/>\nnot been able to successfully assail the said findings of fact by the<br \/>\nlabour court. It is pertinent that the labour court has discussed the<br \/>\nevidence of petitioner and has, on the appreciation and examination<br \/>\nof petitioner&#8217;s evidence, noticed that the petitioner admitted that<br \/>\nat any point of time, during his employment, the petitioner had never<br \/>\nraised any grievance or demand for overtime payment or for payment of<br \/>\nthe balance amount allegedly short paid for the overtime work put in<br \/>\nby him and had never made any complaint in past before preferring the<br \/>\napplication. The labour court has, thus, formed a well reasoned<br \/>\nopinion that the claim made by the petitioner is an afterthought<br \/>\nwhich is unjustified.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nthis view of the matter, no fault can be found with the labour court<br \/>\nin taking into account the said conduct of the petitioner who<br \/>\napproached the court with his claim for payment of wages for overtime<br \/>\nallegedly put in by him for the period from December, 1993 to<br \/>\nDecember, 1996, in 2000 i.e. after 4 years and that he had also<br \/>\ntendered resignation and availed benefit of VRS.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBesides<br \/>\nthis, the labour court has also recorded that the petitioner, in his<br \/>\nevidence, admitted that he did not know at what rate the payment of<br \/>\novertime was made to him. In view of the deposition of the<br \/>\npetitioner, the labour court arrived at a conclusion that the<br \/>\npetitioner failed to establish that he was paid only at the rate of<br \/>\nRe.1\/- for the overtime work put in by him and\/or that he was made to<br \/>\nwork every day from 9.00 a.m. to about 9.00 p.m. or 10.00 p.m. The<br \/>\nlabour court has also recorded finding of fact that primary<br \/>\nresponsibility of proving or establishing the base of his claim was<br \/>\nof the petitioner and the petitioner failed to discharge the same. It<br \/>\nis also relevant to note that in his recovery application and in his<br \/>\nevidence before the court the petitioner alleged that he was made to<br \/>\nput in overtime work everyday for which he made the claim for the<br \/>\nperiod of three years and that too 4 years after tendering<br \/>\nresignation under the VRS from service. It is pertinent that the<br \/>\npetitioner instituted the claim for the period from December, 1993 to<br \/>\nDecember, 1996 in 2000 and after much time from the presentation of<br \/>\nthe recovery application, the petitioner tendered application before<br \/>\nthe labour court asking for direction against the respondent to<br \/>\nproduce the documents. By his said application, the petitioner<br \/>\ndemanded production of documents for the period from 1990 to 1996,<br \/>\nthough his claim was only for the period from December, 1993 to<br \/>\nDecember, 1996. In the present case, no fault can be found with the<br \/>\nlabour court in accepting the submission of the respondent that since<br \/>\nthe demand for production of documents was made for 7 to 10 years old<br \/>\ndocuments the same were not traceable and\/or available. This court is<br \/>\nalso not inclined to accept that merely because the respondent could<br \/>\nnot produce the said documents, the labour court should have drawn<br \/>\nadverse inference and should have allowed the recovery application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSuch<br \/>\nsubmission is not acceptable or sustainable and it would not be<br \/>\njustifiable to draw adverse inference when the claim is lodged after<br \/>\nalmost 4 years and to substantiate his claim, demand for production<br \/>\nof documents by the opponent is made and that too for more than 6 or<br \/>\n7 years old documents.  Such inquiry would amount to fishing and<br \/>\nroving inquiry. On such ground interference with the order of the<br \/>\nlabour court cannot be made, more particularly, when the labour court<br \/>\nhas arrived at and recorded findings of fact on other issues also<br \/>\nwhich are held against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBesides<br \/>\nthis, the issue of limited scope of proceedings under section 33C(2)<br \/>\nis also present in this case and as per the legal position which<br \/>\nexists as of now the claim would not fall within the scope of section<br \/>\n33(C). It is true that by the judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court the<br \/>\nsaid issue has been referred to the Larger Bench, however, the legal<br \/>\nposition settled by the judgments of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court and this<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Court prevails as of now.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFurther,<br \/>\nin the judgment where the issue has been referred to the Larger<br \/>\nBench, the point in question was regarding workman&#8217;s entitlement for<br \/>\nlay off compensation i.e. a statutory benefit which was allegedly<br \/>\ndenied and was being opposed on ground that since VRS amount was<br \/>\naccepted, no claim would survive. In the present case, the labour<br \/>\ncourt has recorded findings of fact and on merits the petitioner<br \/>\nfailed to establish his claim about overtime i.e. he failed to<br \/>\nestablish that he had worked for almost 12 hours everyday and\/or that<br \/>\nhe was not paid for such overtime or that the respondent made short<br \/>\npayment for the overtime work put in by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThus,<br \/>\nin view of the facts of present case and in light of the findings of<br \/>\nfacts recorded by the labour court the said judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nApex Court does not help the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn<br \/>\nover all consideration of the impugned order of the labour court, it<br \/>\nis not possible to hold that the labour court has committed any error<br \/>\nof jurisdiction or of law in rejecting the application and that<br \/>\ntherefore, the present petition fails. Thus, present petition is<br \/>\nrejected. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>[K.M.Thaker,<br \/>\nJ.]<\/p>\n<p>kdc<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Umeshsing vs S.G.S on 13 August, 2008 Author: K.M.Thaker,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/10381\/2008 9\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10381 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed [&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-109742","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Umeshsing vs S.G.S on 13 August, 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\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Umeshsing vs S.G.S on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-24T17:21:16+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Umeshsing vs S.G.S on 13 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-24T17:21:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1536,\"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\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Umeshsing vs S.G.S on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-24T17:21:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Umeshsing vs S.G.S on 13 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Umeshsing vs S.G.S on 13 August, 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\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Umeshsing vs S.G.S on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-24T17:21:16+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Umeshsing vs S.G.S on 13 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-24T17:21:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008"},"wordCount":1536,"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\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008","name":"Umeshsing vs S.G.S on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-24T17:21:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umeshsing-vs-s-g-s-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Umeshsing vs S.G.S on 13 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/109742","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=109742"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109742\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109742"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109742"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109742"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}