{"id":121469,"date":"2008-02-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008"},"modified":"2017-12-02T16:09:22","modified_gmt":"2017-12-02T10:39:22","slug":"pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Rawel Singh on 29 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Rawel Singh on 29 February, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: C Thakker<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: C.K. Thakker, D. K. Jain<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1664 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nPEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORP\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAWEL SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/02\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nC.K. THAKKER &amp; D. K. JAIN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1664     OF 2008<br \/>\nARISING OUT OF  Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2747 of 2007<\/p>\n<p>C.K. Thakker, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.\t\tThis appeal is filed against an<br \/>\naward passed by the Presiding Officer of Labour<br \/>\nCourt, Jallandhur on January 31, 2006 in<br \/>\nReference No. 608 of 2000 and confirmed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana on November<br \/>\n10, 2006 in Civil Writ Petition No.11570 of<br \/>\n2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tShortly stated the facts of the case<br \/>\nare that the respondent-workman was serving as<br \/>\na Driver with the Pepsu Road Transport<br \/>\nCorporation (&#8216;the Corporation&#8217; for short).  On<br \/>\nSeptember 8, 1988, the respondent sent a leave<br \/>\napplication from his home-town seeking leave<br \/>\nupto September 30, 1988 on medical ground.  On<br \/>\nexpiry of the leave period, however, he did not<br \/>\njoin duties.  A report was submitted by the<br \/>\nDepot Manager to the Corporation and a notice<br \/>\nwas issued to the workman on December 5, 1988<br \/>\nseeking his explanation as to absence from<br \/>\nduty.  He was also asked to report within ten<br \/>\ndays.  Though the said notice was duly served,<br \/>\nthe respondent failed to join duty.  A charge<br \/>\nsheet was, therefore, issued against the<br \/>\nrespondent wherein three allegations were<br \/>\nlevelled against him (i) knowingly and<br \/>\nintentionally remaining absent without sanction<br \/>\nof leave and without sending leave application,\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) failure to take interest in work and (iii)<br \/>\ndisobedience of Rules of Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tA reply was filed by the respondent<br \/>\ndenying allegations levelled against him and<br \/>\npraying for withdrawal of notice. The<br \/>\nCorporation was not satisfied with the<br \/>\nexplanation. An enquiry was instituted against<br \/>\nthe workman. Though the respondent was fully<br \/>\naware and had knowledge of date of hearing, he<br \/>\nfailed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and<br \/>\nthe enquiry was held ex parte.  On the basis of<br \/>\nevidence led by management, a finding was<br \/>\nrecorded by the Enquiry Officer that the<br \/>\ncharges levelled against the respondent-workman<br \/>\nwere proved.  After the receipt of Enquiry<br \/>\nOfficer&#8217;s report again show cause notice was<br \/>\nissued to the respondent on June 20, 1989 and<br \/>\nhe was asked to submit his representation<br \/>\nwithin fifteen days.  He was also asked to<br \/>\nremain present, if he wanted personal hearing,<br \/>\nbut the respondent failed to remain present.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tConsidering the reply submitted by the<br \/>\nrespondent, the Disciplinary Authority passed<br \/>\nan order of termination of services of the<br \/>\nworkman on July 13, 1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tBeing aggrieved by the order of<br \/>\ntermination, the respondent instituted a suit<br \/>\nin the Court of Sub-Judge Kapurthala.  It was<br \/>\ncontended by him that the order of termination<br \/>\nwas illegal, cryptic, unfair and contrary to<br \/>\nthe principles of natural justice and fair<br \/>\nplay.  Though the Corporation filed written<br \/>\nstatement, contested the matter and denied all<br \/>\nthe averments made and allegations levelled<br \/>\nagainst the Corporation, the trial court, on<br \/>\nJune 3, 1993 decreed the suit holding that the<br \/>\norder was not sustainable as it was violative<br \/>\nof principles of natural justice as also<br \/>\ninconsistent with the provisions of Service<br \/>\nRules of the Corporation. The Court, therefore,<br \/>\ngranted reinstatement of the plaintiff-employee<br \/>\ngranting liberty to the Corporation to hold<br \/>\nfresh enquiry on the same charges. The<br \/>\nCorporation preferred an appeal against the<br \/>\ndecree passed by the trial court but the<br \/>\nappellate court confirmed the decree. The<br \/>\nmatter came to an end there; the workman was<br \/>\nreinstated in service and granted all the<br \/>\nbenefits to which he was held entitled under<br \/>\nthe decree.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tIn the light of the observations made<br \/>\nand liberty granted by the Court, fresh enquiry<br \/>\nwas instituted against the respondent.  A show<br \/>\ncause notice was issued which was duly received<br \/>\nby the respondent but he did not participate in<br \/>\nthe enquiry.  Enquiry was, therefore, proceeded<br \/>\nex parte.  According to the Corporation, it was<br \/>\nthe modus operandi of the workman not to remain<br \/>\npresent at the enquiry as he was working with<br \/>\nprivate bus operators and thereafter to<br \/>\nchallenge ex parte orders.  In the second<br \/>\nenquiry also, he did not cooperate. He<br \/>\ncontended that he had not received necessary<br \/>\ndocuments. He did not join the proceedings,<br \/>\nremained absent and allowed the enquiry to<br \/>\nproceed ex parte. Finally, he was dismissed<br \/>\nfrom service.  Being aggrieved by the said<br \/>\naction, he raised an Industrial Dispute and a<br \/>\nreference was made under Section 10 of the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217;).  The Labour Court,<br \/>\nJallandhar, as stated above passed an award in<br \/>\nfavour of the workman on January 31, 2006 which<br \/>\nwas confirmed by the High Court against which<br \/>\nthe present appeal is filed by the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tNotice was issued by this Court on<br \/>\nFebruary 23, 2007 and ad interim stay was also<br \/>\ngranted.  The matter was thereafter ordered to<br \/>\nbe placed for hearing and that is how the<br \/>\nmatter is before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tWe have heard learned counsel for the<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tThe learned counsel for the appellant\n<\/p>\n<p>-Corporation contended that the Labour Court as<br \/>\nwell as the High Court have committed an error<br \/>\nof law and of jurisdiction in passing the award<br \/>\nin favour of the respondent-workman.  It was<br \/>\nsubmitted that the charges levelled against the<br \/>\nrespondent were proved. Though opportunity of<br \/>\nhearing had been afforded to the respondent, he<br \/>\ndid not avail of such opportunity and it could<br \/>\nnot be said that the enquiry was improper or<br \/>\nunfair. So far as documents are concerned, it<br \/>\nwas submitted that the documents had already<br \/>\nbeen supplied to the respondent and he had<br \/>\nadmitted the said fact.  According to the<br \/>\nreport of the Enquiry Officer, all the three<br \/>\ncharges levelled against the respondent were<br \/>\nproved. If, in the light of the above report,<br \/>\nthe respondent was dismissed from service, it<br \/>\ncould not be said that no such order could have<br \/>\nbeen passed and it was liable to be set aside.<br \/>\nThe Labour Court was wrong in holding that<br \/>\nenquiry was not in consonance with law.  It was<br \/>\nalso wrong to exercise power under Section 11 A<br \/>\nof the Act and to grant reinstatement.  Serious<br \/>\ngrievance was made by the learned counsel<br \/>\nagainst the direction to pay back wages. It was<br \/>\nsubmitted that even if the Labour Court was<br \/>\nsatisfied that it was a fit case to exercise<br \/>\npower under Section 11A of the Act, on the<br \/>\nfacts and in circumstances of the case, it<br \/>\ncould not have awarded full back wages with<br \/>\ninterest @ 6%.  This is particularly in view<br \/>\nthe consistent conduct of the respondent-<br \/>\nworkman in not cooperating with the<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings. It was, therefore,<br \/>\nsubmitted that the appeal deserves to be<br \/>\nallowed by setting aside the award passed by<br \/>\nthe Labour Court and confirmed by the High<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\t\tLearned counsel for the respondent, on<br \/>\nthe other hand, supported the orders.  It was<br \/>\ncontended that the Labour Court, recorded a<br \/>\nfinding of fact that principles of natural<br \/>\njustice had not been observed and hence enquiry<br \/>\ncould not be said to be fair and in consonance<br \/>\nwith law.  The Labour Court was also right in<br \/>\nexercising power under Section 11A of the Act<br \/>\nand no fault can be found against such action.<br \/>\nThe High Court in exercise of supervisory<br \/>\njurisdiction did not think it proper to<br \/>\ninterfere with the award and this Court may not<br \/>\nexercise discretionary and equitable<br \/>\njurisdiction under Article 136 of the<br \/>\nConstitution. The counsel, therefore, submitted<br \/>\nthat the appeal may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\t\tHaving heard the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe parties and considering the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances in their entirety, in our<br \/>\nopinion, the appeal deserves to be partly<br \/>\nallowed. As already observed by us, even at an<br \/>\nearlier occasion, when allegations were<br \/>\nlevelled against the respondent-workman, notice<br \/>\nwas issued and enquiry was instituted, he did<br \/>\nnot make himself available and the Enquiry<br \/>\nOfficer was constrained to proceed with the<br \/>\nenquiry ex parte and an order of termination of<br \/>\nservices was passed. True it is that the<br \/>\nrespondent-workman approached Civil Court and<br \/>\nthe suit filed by him came to be allowed and<br \/>\nthe decree was confirmed in appeal.  But it is<br \/>\nequally true that liberty was granted to the<br \/>\nCorporation to initiate proceedings afresh on<br \/>\nthe same charges and hence initiation of<br \/>\nproceedings could not be said to be illegal or<br \/>\ncontrary to law. From the record, it is clear<br \/>\nthat notice was issued to the respondent and it<br \/>\nwas received by him, he filed his reply, he<br \/>\nalso appeared before the Enquiry Officer but<br \/>\nsubsequently he did not remain present and<br \/>\nabsented himself.  If, in the light of the<br \/>\nabove facts, Enquiry Officer was obliged to<br \/>\nproceed with the enquiry ex parte, it could not<br \/>\nbe said that by doing so, the Enquiry Officer<br \/>\nhad committed an error either of fact or of law<br \/>\nand the enquiry proceedings were liable to be<br \/>\nquashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\t\tWith regard to supply of documents,<br \/>\nrecord reveals that the documents had been<br \/>\nsupplied to the workman and the said fact had<br \/>\nbeen admitted by him.  His case, however, was<br \/>\nthat due to heavy rain, all the documents were<br \/>\ndestroyed which necessitated supply of fresh<br \/>\ndocuments. But as observed by the Enquiry<br \/>\nOfficer, the workman was asked as to whether he<br \/>\nrequired any document but the workman replied<br \/>\nin the negative. In our opinion, he could have<br \/>\ncontinued to appear before the Enquiry Officer,<br \/>\ngot the documents, if he wanted, and<br \/>\nparticipated in the enquiry. He, however,<br \/>\ndeliberately did not do so.  It is alleged by<br \/>\nthe Corporation that the respondent<br \/>\nintentionally remained absent as he was working<br \/>\nwith private bus operators and wanted to take a<br \/>\nchance if enquiry proceedings are quashed and<br \/>\nset aside on the plea of violation of<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice.  We are not<br \/>\nentering into correctness or otherwise of the<br \/>\nallegations of the Corporation.  One thing,<br \/>\nhowever, is certain that in spite of service of<br \/>\nshow cause notice, the respondent failed to<br \/>\nappear at the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer<br \/>\nhad to proceed with the enquiry in absence of<br \/>\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. \t\tApart from that it is also clear from<br \/>\nthe record that so far as the charge as to<br \/>\nunauthorized absence of the respondent is<br \/>\nconcerned, the same is duly established from<br \/>\nthe record.  The Enquiry Officer, in our<br \/>\nopinion, rightly observed that charges (ii) and\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) were consequential in nature and based on<br \/>\ncharge (i) and hence all the charges can be<br \/>\nsaid to have been proved against the<br \/>\nrespondent.  In our judgment, the Labour Court<br \/>\nwas wholly wrong in holding that enquiry was<br \/>\nnot fair. To us, it is not a case of not<br \/>\nextending an opportunity to the employee but<br \/>\nnot availing of opportunity by the employee.<br \/>\nTherefore, the finding recorded by the Labour<br \/>\nCourt that the enquiry was vitiated being<br \/>\nviolative of natural justice and fair play is<br \/>\nbased on &#8216;no evidence&#8217; and must be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\t\tBut as far as the second question is<br \/>\nconcerned, the Labour Court exercised power<br \/>\nunder Section 11A of the Act.  Taking<br \/>\nallegations of the appellant Corporation on<br \/>\nface value, it is clear that the respondent-<br \/>\nworkman remained absent for few days<br \/>\nunauthorisedly without his leave being<br \/>\nsanctioned.  Charges (ii) and (iii) were<br \/>\nconsequential even according to the finding<br \/>\nrecorded by the Enquiry Officer to the effect<br \/>\nthat he failed to take interest in work and he<br \/>\ndid not obey the Rules framed by the<br \/>\nCorporation.  In the light of the above<br \/>\n&#8216;misconduct&#8217;, the Labour Court thought that it<br \/>\nwas a fit case to invoke Section 11A of the<br \/>\nAct. The High Court also, in exercise of<br \/>\nsupervisory jurisdiction did not interfere with<br \/>\nthat part of the order. In our considered<br \/>\nopinion, submission of the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe respondent-workman is well-founded that<br \/>\nthis Court while exercising power under Article<br \/>\n136 of the Constitution may not interfere with<br \/>\nthat part of the order.  The dismissal of<br \/>\nworkman on the ground of absence for few days,<br \/>\naccording to the Labour Court, was grossly<br \/>\ndisproportionate and excessively high.  In our<br \/>\njudgment, the Labour Court had not committed<br \/>\nerror of law in recording such finding.<br \/>\nReinstatement granted to the respondent-<br \/>\nworkman, therefore, needs no interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\t\tThe question then remains with regard<br \/>\nto consequential benefits and payment of back<br \/>\nwages. Once we hold, and we have already held,<br \/>\nthat the enquiry could not be said to be<br \/>\ncontrary to law or in violation of principles<br \/>\nof natural justice and fair play, it was the<br \/>\nduty of the respondent-workman to cooperate<br \/>\nwith such enquiry and participate in<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings.  The workman failed<br \/>\nto do so.  In the circumstances, in our<br \/>\nopinion, Corporation should not be asked to pay<br \/>\nback wags to the workman. Had the respondent<br \/>\nremained present at the enquiry proceedings, an<br \/>\nappropriate order could have been passed by<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer after considering his case and<br \/>\nafter hearing him.  There was thus default and<br \/>\nfailure on the part of the workman himself<br \/>\nwhich resulted in the situation which has<br \/>\narisen.  In view of this, in our view, the<br \/>\nLabour Court was not right in awarding back<br \/>\nwages with interest thereon. To that extent,<br \/>\ntherefore, the order could not be said to be in<br \/>\nconsonance with law. The High Court, in<br \/>\nupholding the said award and confirming the<br \/>\ndirection, committed the same error.  That part<br \/>\nof the direction, therefore, is required to be<br \/>\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.\t\tFor the foregoing reasons, the appeal<br \/>\nis partly allowed. The award passed by the<br \/>\nLabour Court and confirmed by the High Court so<br \/>\nfar as reinstatement of the respondent-workman<br \/>\nis concerned, is not disturbed.  But the<br \/>\ndirection issued by the Labour Court to the<br \/>\nappellant- Corporation to pay back wages to the<br \/>\nrespondent workman with interest thereon as<br \/>\nconfirmed by the High Court is hereby set<br \/>\naside.  The respondent-workman will be treated<br \/>\nin continuous service. He will also be entitled<br \/>\nto consequential benefits on setting aside of<br \/>\ndismissal order but he is held not entitled to<br \/>\nback wages for the period for which he has not<br \/>\nworked.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.\t\tOrdered accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Rawel Singh on 29 February, 2008 Author: C Thakker Bench: C.K. Thakker, D. K. Jain CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1664 of 2008 PETITIONER: PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORP RESPONDENT: RAWEL SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/02\/2008 BENCH: C.K. THAKKER &amp; D. K. JAIN JUDGMENT: J U D G [&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-121469","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>Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Rawel Singh on 29 February, 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\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Rawel Singh on 29 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-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=\"2008-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-02T10:39:22+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\\\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Rawel Singh on 29 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-02T10:39:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2297,\"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\\\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Rawel Singh on 29 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-02T10:39:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Rawel Singh on 29 February, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Rawel Singh on 29 February, 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\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Rawel Singh on 29 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-02T10:39:22+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\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Rawel Singh on 29 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-02T10:39:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008"},"wordCount":2297,"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\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008","name":"Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Rawel Singh on 29 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-02T10:39:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsu-road-transport-corp-vs-rawel-singh-on-29-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Rawel Singh on 29 February, 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:\/\/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\/121469","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=121469"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121469\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121469"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121469"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}