{"id":121252,"date":"1996-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996"},"modified":"2016-04-30T10:42:04","modified_gmt":"2016-04-30T05:12:04","slug":"bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996","title":{"rendered":"Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1556, \t\t  1996 SCC  (4) 374<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Ray<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ray, G.N. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBHARAT FORGE COMPANY LIMITED\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nA.B. ZODGE AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t20\/02\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, G.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, G.N. (J)\nHANSARIA B.L. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR 1556\t\t  1996 SCC  (4) 374\n JT 1996 (5)   628\t  1996 SCALE  (2)731\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Heard  learned  counsel  for  the\tparties.  The  short<br \/>\nquestion which\tarises for  consideration of  this Court  is<br \/>\nwhether the  Industrial Tribunal  was justified\t in refusing<br \/>\nthe prayer  of the  appellant company  the employer  to lead<br \/>\nevidence in support of the order of dismissal passed against<br \/>\nthe  respondent-employee.  By  the  impugned  judgment,\t the<br \/>\nBombay High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal in<br \/>\nrefusing to give permission to the employer to lead evidence<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  Tribunal  in  justification  of  the  order  of<br \/>\ndismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Pai,  the learned  senior counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nappellant has  submitted before\t us that such permission has<br \/>\nbeen refused by the Tribunal by indicating that although the<br \/>\nenquiry was  properly held,  the finding in such enquiry was<br \/>\nperverse and  in such  circumstances, no opportunity to lead<br \/>\nevidences should be given. Such view according to Mr. Pai is<br \/>\nnot justified  inasmuch as it has been held in Management of<br \/>\nRitz Theatre  (P) Ltd.\tVs. Its\t Workmen (1963\t(3) SCR 461)<br \/>\nthat even  when finding is perverse (see page 468) the whole<br \/>\nissue is  at large  before the\tTribunal  and  it  would  be<br \/>\nentitled to deal with the merits of the dispute itself, when<br \/>\nit would  be open  to  the  employer  to  adduce  additional<br \/>\nevidence. Mr.Phadnis,  learned senior  counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe respondents,  contends that\t was  the  position  in\t law<br \/>\nbefore insertion  of Section 11 A in the Industrial Disputes<br \/>\nAct, but this section has altered the position.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.Pai s  submission is that this is not so. In support<br \/>\nof his\tcontention,  he\t has  drawn  our  attention  to\t the<br \/>\ndecision of  this Court\t in Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre<br \/>\nand Rubber  Co. of India (P) Ltd. versus Management and Ors.<br \/>\n(1973  (3)   SCR  page\t587).  In  the\tsaid  decision,\t the<br \/>\nlegislative changes  brought  about  on\t the  power  of\t the<br \/>\nTribunal to decide the question of correctness and propriety<br \/>\nof the\torder of  termination or  dismissal of service of an<br \/>\nemployee under\tSection 11  A were taken into consideration.<br \/>\nIt has been indicated in the said decision that the Tribunal<br \/>\nunder Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act is clothed<br \/>\nwith the  power to  assess the\tevidences placed  before the<br \/>\nTribunal for deciding as to whether the decision made by the<br \/>\nemployer was justified or not and such power is not fettered<br \/>\nin any\tmanner. In  the said decision, the earlier decisions<br \/>\nof this\t Court\twere  also  considered\tand  ten  principles<br \/>\nemerging from  such decisions  have also been culled out. It<br \/>\nalso appears  that the\tcontention sought  to be  raised  on<br \/>\nbehalf of  the workmen\tthat the  right of  the employer  to<br \/>\nadduce evidence\t before the  Tribunal, for  the\t first\ttime<br \/>\nsince recognized  by  this  Court  in  its  various  earlier<br \/>\ndecisions, has\tbeen taken  away by  Section  11  A  of\t the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes  Act has  not been accepted. It has been<br \/>\nindicated in  the said\tdecision that there is no indication<br \/>\nin Section  11 A  that such right has been abrogated. It has<br \/>\nalso been  held that if the intention of the legislature was<br \/>\nto do  away with such right which has been recognized over a<br \/>\nlong period  of time as noticed in the decisions referred to<br \/>\nearlier Section\t 11 A  would have  been differently  worded.<br \/>\nThis Court has observed that admittedly there are no express<br \/>\nwords to  that effect  and there  is no\t indication that the<br \/>\nSection 11  A has impliedly changed the law in that respect.<br \/>\nTherefore, the\tposition is  that even\tnow the\t employer is<br \/>\nentitled to adduce evidences, for the first time, before the<br \/>\nTribunal even  if the  employer had  held no  inquiry or the<br \/>\ninquiry held by the employer is found to be derverse.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Phadhis  has, however,\t submitted before us that it<br \/>\ndoes not  appear that  in the  decision\t of  Firestone\tTyre<br \/>\nRubber Company&#8217;s  case, proviso\t to Section  11 A  has\tbeen<br \/>\nspecifically adverted  to  and\tthereafter  considered.\t The<br \/>\nproviso expressly  bars introduction  of any fresh materials<br \/>\nbecause the  proviso to\t Section 11  A\tindicates  that\t the<br \/>\nLabour Court. Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may<br \/>\nbe, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not<br \/>\ntake fresh evidence in relation to the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Phadhis  has  submitted  that\tthe  implication  of<br \/>\nproviso to  Section 11\tA therefore  requires consideration.<br \/>\nSuch contention of Mr. Phadhis, however, cannot be accepted.<br \/>\nMr. Pai\t has drawn our attention to a later decision of this<br \/>\nCourt by  a Bench  of three  Judges in\tShanker\t Chakravarti<br \/>\nversus Britannia  Biscuit Co.  Ltd. and\t Anr. (1979  (3) SCR<br \/>\npaged  1165).\tIn  the\t  said\tdecision,  the\tquestion  of<br \/>\nimplication of\tthe proviso to Section 11 A was specifically<br \/>\nraised and  such question has been gone into. The contention<br \/>\nthat under  the proviso\t to Section 11 A the Labour Court or<br \/>\nthe  Industrial\t  Tribunal  or\t the  National\tTribunal  in<br \/>\nproceeding under  Section  11  A  shall\t rely  only  on\t the<br \/>\nmaterial on  record and shall not take any fresh evidence in<br \/>\nrelation to  the matter under consideration was not accepted<br \/>\nby  this   Court  by  placing  reliance\t on  the  reasonings<br \/>\nindicated in the decision in Firestone Rubber Company case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     A domestic\t enquiry may  be vitiated  either  for\tnon-<br \/>\ncompliance of  rules of\t natural justice  or for perversity.<br \/>\nDisciplinary action taken on the basis of a vitiated enquiry<br \/>\ndoes not  stand on  a better  footing  than  a\tdisciplinary<br \/>\naction with  no enquiry. The right of the employer to adduce<br \/>\nevidence in  both the situations is well-recognised. In this<br \/>\nconnection, reference  may be  made to the decisions of this<br \/>\nCourt in  Workmen of  Motipur Sugar  Factory  (P)  Ltd.\t Vs.<br \/>\nMotipur Sugar  Factory (P)  Ltd. (1965\t(II) LLJ  162 (SC&gt;).<br \/>\nState Bank  of India Vs. R.K.Jain (1971 (III) LLJ 599 (SC&gt;).<br \/>\nDelhi Cloth  General Mill Co. Ltd. Vs. Ludh Budh Singh (1972<br \/>\n(1) LLJ\t 180 (SC&gt;) and Firestone Tyre Co.s Case (supra). The<br \/>\nstage at  which the  employer should ask for permission to c<br \/>\nadditional evidence  to justify\t the disciplinary  action on<br \/>\nmerits was  indicated by  this\tCourt  in  Delhi  Cloth\t and<br \/>\nGeneral Mill&#8217;s\tcase (supra).  In Sankar  Chakrabarty&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra), the  contention that  in every case of disciplinary<br \/>\naction coming  before the Tribunal, the Tribunal as a matter<br \/>\nof law\tmust frame  preliminary issue and proceed to see the<br \/>\nvalidity or  otherwise of the enquiry and then serve a fresh<br \/>\nnotice on  the employe-\t by calling  him to  adduce  further<br \/>\nevidence to  sustain the charges, if the employer chooses to<br \/>\ndo so,\tby relying on the decision of this Court in the case<br \/>\nof Cooper  Engineering Ltd. (1975 (2) LLJ 379 (SC&gt;), has not<br \/>\nbeen accepted. The view expressed in Delhi Cloth Mill&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra)\t that\tbefore\tthe   proceedings  are\t closed,  an<br \/>\nopportunity to\tadduce evidence would be given if a suitable<br \/>\nrequest for  such opportunity is made by the employer to the<br \/>\nTribunal, has  been reiterated\tin Sankar Chakrabarty&#8217;s case<br \/>\nafter observing\t that on  the question as to the stage as to<br \/>\nwhen leave  to adduce  further evidence is to be sought for,<br \/>\nthe decision  of this  Court in\t Cooper Engineering Ltd. has<br \/>\nnot overruled  the decision  of this  Court in\tDelhi  Cloth<br \/>\nMill&#8217;s case.  There is\tno dispute  in the present case that<br \/>\nbefore the  closure of\tthe proceedings before the Tribunal,<br \/>\npayer was  made by  the employer to lead evidence in support<br \/>\nof the\timpugned order\tof dismissal.  Hence, denial  of the<br \/>\nopportunity to\tthe employer  to lead  evidence\t before\t the<br \/>\nTribunal in  support of\t the order  of dismissal  cannot  be<br \/>\njustified.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In that  view of  the  matter,  the  impugned  judgment<br \/>\ncannot be  sustained and  the same  is set aside. It will be<br \/>\nopen to\t the parties  to lead such evidence as they may deem<br \/>\nproper before the Industrial Tribunal where the matter is to<br \/>\nbe re-heard.  Since the proceeding is pending for a long, we<br \/>\ndirect that  the proceeding  before the\t Tribunal should  be<br \/>\ncompleted as early as practicable, but not beyond six months<br \/>\nfrom the  date of  communication of  this order. In order to<br \/>\nexpedite the  proceeding before\t the Tribunal we direct that<br \/>\nthe appellant  Bharat  Forge  Ltd.  may\t lead  such  further<br \/>\nevidenced as  the said company may desire within a period of<br \/>\ntwo months  from today and the worker may also lead evidence<br \/>\nif they so desire within one month thereafter. The appeal is<br \/>\naccordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1556, 1996 SCC (4) 374 Author: G Ray Bench: Ray, G.N. (J) PETITIONER: BHARAT FORGE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RESPONDENT: A.B. ZODGE AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/02\/1996 BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH: RAY, G.N. [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996 - 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\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-30T05:12:04+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-30T05:12:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1416,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996\",\"name\":\"Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-30T05:12:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996 - 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\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-30T05:12:04+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996","datePublished":"1996-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-30T05:12:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996"},"wordCount":1416,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996","name":"Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-30T05:12:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-forge-company-limited-vs-a-b-zodge-and-anr-on-20-february-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharat Forge Company Limited vs A.B. Zodge And Anr on 20 February, 1996"}]},{"@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\/121252","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=121252"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121252\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}