{"id":113732,"date":"2004-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-07-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004"},"modified":"2017-09-18T03:45:06","modified_gmt":"2017-09-17T22:15:06","slug":"r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004","title":{"rendered":"R. Sekar vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R. Sekar vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 16\/07\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n\nWRIT PETITION NO.15649 OF 2001\n\n\nR. Sekar,\nS\/o.V.R. Ramachandran           ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Presiding Officer,\n   Principal Labour Court,\n   Chennai 1.\n\n2. The Management,\n   Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd.,\n   St. Thomas Mount,\n   Chennai 16.                  ..  Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.R.  Lawrence\n\nFor Respondent-2       :  Mr.S.  Ravindran for\n                        M\/s.T.S.  Gopalan &amp; Co.\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The  petitioner  has  prayed for quashing the award dated 23-8-2000 in<br \/>\nI.D.No.188 of 1995 and consequentially to  direct  the  second  respondent  to<br \/>\nreinstate the petitioner with all benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The  aforesaid  I.D.No.188  of  1995 was heard along with several<br \/>\nother disputes under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the<br \/>\nconcerned employees and the present respondent No.2.  The brief facts, so  far<br \/>\nas relevant to the present petitioner, are as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        The petitioner was employed under the respondent No.2 as a workman and<br \/>\ncontinued as  such  for  a  period of 23 years.  Thereafter the petitioner was<br \/>\nterminated on 30.6.1993 in the guise of  voluntary  retirement  from  service.<br \/>\nThe  petitioner  was paid a sum of Rs.1,49,875.91\/- towards the so called dues<br \/>\non the voluntary retirement.  It was the case of the  petitioner  that  though<br \/>\nsuch  termination was styled as if it was a voluntary retirement, actually the<br \/>\npetitioner was forced to retire.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  It was the contention of the petitioner before the  Labour<br \/>\nCourt  that  juniors  to him are working and the petitioner, who was senior to<br \/>\nthem, was thrown out under voluntary retirement scheme, which was violative of<br \/>\nthe provisions contained in Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.    It<br \/>\nwas  his  further  contention  that  in  the  absence  of any provision in the<br \/>\nstatutory Standing Orders, there is no power to invoke such a scheme  and  the<br \/>\nretirement was  not voluntary, but involuntary.  It was further contended that<br \/>\nat any  rate  voluntary  resignation  could  not  have  been  accepted  before<br \/>\ncompletion  of  three  months  period  as  envisaged under Section 25-N of the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act.  It was also the  contention  before  the  Industrial<\/p>\n<p>Forum  that  under  coercion and undue influence, amount had been paid and the<br \/>\npetitioner  had  been  purportedly  retired  under  the  so  called  voluntary<br \/>\nretirement scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  The stand of the second respondent before the Labour Court<br \/>\nwas  to  the  effect that the voluntary retirement scheme had been floated and<br \/>\nthe persons like  the  petitioner  and  other  disputants  in  the  Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes had voluntarily availed of the scheme and had received the benefit of<br \/>\nthe  lumpsum  and also subsequently received the benefit of monthly pension as<br \/>\nenvisaged.  Therefore, the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act<br \/>\nwere not at all attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, framed the  following<br \/>\nissues :-\n<\/p>\n<p>         1.   Whether the voluntary retirement scheme said to have been opted<br \/>\nby the petitioners is genuine and bonafide ?\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Whether the petitioners in all these petitions  are  entitled  for<br \/>\nreinstatement in service with full backwages and other attendant benefits ?\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   While  deciding issue No.1, the Labour Court on the basis<br \/>\nof  the  evidence  on  record  came  to  the  conclusion  that  prior  to  the<br \/>\nintroduction  of  Voluntary  Retirement Scheme, under which the petitioner had<br \/>\nretired, similar Schemes had been introduced  and  many  of  the  workmen  had<br \/>\navailed  of  such  Schemes,  and the workmen after having availed the benefit,<br \/>\nthey had issued notice complaining that their signatures  had  obtained  under<br \/>\nduress.  The allegation that the workmen had been forced to sign the voluntary<br \/>\nretirement papers  was  negatived.   The contention that in the absence of any<br \/>\nprovision contained in the Standing Orders, such scheme should not  have  been<br \/>\nfloated  was  also negatived and it was observed that the voluntary retirement<br \/>\nscheme is a recognised method of cessation of employment.  Ultimately, it  was<br \/>\nconcluded   that  the  workmen  had  opted  for  voluntary  retirement  scheme<br \/>\nvoluntarily and there was no  infirmity.    Accordingly,  all  the  Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes, including the one raised by the petitioner, were dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.    Learned   counsel   appearing  for  the  petitioner  has<br \/>\nvehemently contended that in the absence of  any  provision  in  the  Standing<br \/>\nOrders, no such voluntary retirement scheme can be floated by any employer.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  As per Section 2(oo),<br \/>\n        retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of<br \/>\na  workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted<br \/>\nby way of disciplinary action, but does not include &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b) to (c) .  .  .\n<\/p>\n<p>It is thus obvious that if there is any voluntary retirement, such matter will<br \/>\nnot come within the expression of retrenchment.  It is not necessary that in<br \/>\nthe Standing Orders any provision has to be made for voluntary retirement.  As<br \/>\nper the terms offered by the employer it would be open to the employee to  opt<br \/>\nfor the  voluntary  retirement.  In such view of the matter, the contention of<br \/>\nthe petitioner that in the absence of any specific provision in  the  Standing<br \/>\nOrders there cannot be any scheme for voluntary retirement, is not acceptable.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that<br \/>\nthe second respondent did not follow the provisions contained in Section 2 5-G<br \/>\nof the Industrial Disputes Act.  Section 25-G contains a recognised well known<br \/>\nprinciple last  come  first  go.  However, since the voluntary retirement is<br \/>\nnot such a  retirement  as  envisaged  under  Section  2(oo),  the  provisions<br \/>\ncontained  in  Section  25-G  obviously  would  be inapplicable to the case of<br \/>\nvoluntary retirement.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  Learned counsel for the  petitioner  has  also  contended<br \/>\nthat  the  provisions  contained in Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act<br \/>\nhad not been complied with.  Section 9-A relates to effecting  any  change  in<br \/>\nthe conditions of service applicable to any workman.  However, since voluntary<\/p>\n<p>retirement  is  on  the basis of the option exercised by the employee himself,<br \/>\nthere is no scope for invoking the provisions contained  in  Chapter  II-A  to<br \/>\nsuch voluntary retirement.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.   Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in<br \/>\nthe facts and circumstances of the present case it cannot be said  that  there<br \/>\nwas  any  actual  voluntary  retirement  and  the action of the management was<br \/>\nvitiated by duress and coercion.  The  Presiding  Officer,  Labour  Court,  on<br \/>\nconsideration  of  the  materials on record, came to a factual conclusion that<br \/>\nthere was no coercion and the workmen concerned  had  retired  voluntarily  by<br \/>\ngiving their  option.  This conclusion is basically a finding of fact based on<br \/>\ndiscussion of relevant materials on record.  The High Court while dealing with<br \/>\nsuch matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not  sit  as<br \/>\nan appellate authority over the decision of the Industrial Forum.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.   In  the  present case, the Labour Court has referred the<br \/>\nmaterials available on record and after taking into  consideration  the  facts<br \/>\nand  circumstances  of  the  case,  came to a particular conclusion and merely<br \/>\nbecause such a conclusion is not to the liking of the petitioner  or  even  of<br \/>\nthe High  Court,  a  different  view  cannot  be  taken.    By  no  stretch of<br \/>\nimagination it can be said that the conclusions of the Labour Court are  based<br \/>\non no evidence or perverse.  Keeping in view the limited scope of interference<br \/>\nunder  Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters, I hardly find<br \/>\nno scope to come to a different conclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.  For the aforesaid reasons, I do not  find  any  merit  in<br \/>\nthis writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>dpk<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nPrincipal Labour Court,<br \/>\nChennai 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Management,<br \/>\nBush Boake Allen (India) Ltd.,<br \/>\nSt.  Thomas Mount,<br \/>\nChennai 16.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court R. Sekar vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16\/07\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA WRIT PETITION NO.15649 OF 2001 R. Sekar, S\/o.V.R. Ramachandran .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai 1. 2. The Management, Bush [&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-113732","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R. Sekar vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2004 - 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\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Sekar vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-17T22:15:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Sekar vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-17T22:15:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1179,\"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\\\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004\",\"name\":\"R. Sekar vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-17T22:15:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Sekar vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 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":"R. Sekar vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2004 - 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\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Sekar vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-17T22:15:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Sekar vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2004","datePublished":"2004-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-17T22:15:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004"},"wordCount":1179,"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\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004","name":"R. Sekar vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-17T22:15:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sekar-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Sekar vs The Presiding Officer on 16 July, 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\/113732","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=113732"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113732\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113732"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113732"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113732"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}