{"id":121739,"date":"2010-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-13T18:18:05","modified_gmt":"2015-12-13T12:48:05","slug":"state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Katuben on 4 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Katuben on 4 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/2861\/2010\t 9\/ 20\tORDER \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. 2861 of 2010\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2868 of 2010\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n \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 the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKATUBEN\nTAPUBHAI - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nAL SHARMA AGP  for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 2. \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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 04\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\tHeard
\nlearned AGP Mr.A.L.Sharma for petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\npetitioners have challenged the common award passed by the Labour
\nCourt, Bhavnagar in Reference Nos.55 to 59 of 1992, 64 of 1992, 78
\nand 79 of 1992, Exh.31, dated 18.7.2009.\n<\/p>\n
2.1\tThe
\nLabour Court, Bhavnagar has granted reinstatement to each workman
\nexcept workman Nathabhai Tapubhai and Jayaben Meghabhai, who expired
\nduring pendency of reference before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar. The
\nLabour Court, Bhavnagar has awarded only consequential benefits in
\nfavour of legal heirs and representatives of deceased Nathabhai and
\nJayaben. The Labour Court, Bhavnagar has not awarded any amount of
\nback wages in favour of any workman while granting only reinstatement
\nin service but, Labour Court, Bhavnagar has granted consequential
\nbenefits in favour of the workmen.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tLearned
\nAGP Mr.Sharma has raised contention before this Court that labour
\nCourt has committed gross error in deciding reference and come to
\nconclusion that each workman has completed continuous service of 240
\ndays within preceding 12 months from date of termination. He also
\nsubmitted that documents which are produced by petitioners have not
\nbeen properly considered and examined by labour Court. The record
\nwhich has been produced and details given by petitioners, from that
\nnone of the workman has completed 240 days continuous service as
\nrequired under Section 25B of the I.D.Act. He submitted that service
\nhas not been terminated by petitioners but, workmen themselves have
\nstopped coming and there is no written order of termination has been
\nissued by petitioners against workmen. He also submitted a specific
\nletter was written to present workmen for joining the work but,
\nrespondents workmen did not reply to the same and did not turn up for
\nthe work and therefore, labour Court has committed gross error in
\ngranting relief in favour of respondents workmen. The benefit of
\ncontinuity of service is not granted by labour Court in favour of
\nrespondents workmen while only granting reinstatement, that is also
\nbad and contrary to law. The workmen have not established
\nrelationship between petitioners and workmen as an employer and
\nemployee. The burden of proof is upon workman to prove 240 days
\ncontinuous service as required under Section 25B of the I.D.Act which
\nhas not been proved by workmen. Therefore, burden is not shifted upon
\nemployer to disprove these facts. The respondents workmen were daily
\nwager who were engaged for some work and when no work was available,
\nthey were not provided the work by petitioners, that cannot consider
\nto be a termination of such workmen. Therefore, according to his
\nsubmissions, the labour Court has committed gross error in giving
\ndirection of reinstatement in favour of respondents workmen. He
\nsubmitted that as and when work required, by letter dated 21.10.1991,
\n12.11.1991 and 18.12.2991 request was made to workmen to report for
\nduty but workmen have not reported for duty. Therefore, labour Court
\nhas committed gross error in allowing reference in favour of
\nrespondents workmen. He also submitted that details of presence which
\nwere prepared on basis of documents Exh.35 to 49 where daily list of
\ndaily workmen for one month period has been produced on record as
\nreferred in Para.6 of the award which has not been properly
\nappreciated by Labour Court. Except that, no other submission is made
\nby learned AGP Mr.Sharma on behalf of petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tI
\nhave considered submissions made by learned AGP Mr.Sharma and also
\nperused the common award in question. Before the labour Court,
\nstatement of claim was filed by workmen in support of their claim.
\nAll the references were consolidated on 29.3.1995 vide Exh.10 and
\nvide Exh.35 dated 12.9.1997. According to workmen, they were working
\nfor more than 8 years as a daily wager with petitioners, receiving
\ndaily wage of Rs.24.75 ps. and their services were terminated by
\npetitioners in April,1991. Thereafter, demand was made by letter
\ndated 2.8.1991 and ultimately, matter has been referred  by the
\nConciliation Officer to concerned labour Court for adjudication.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tAccording
\nto workman, provisions of Section 25(F), (G) and (H) of the I.D.Act
\nhave been violated by petitioners while terminating services of
\nworkmen. The reply was filed by petitioners and according to reply,
\nworkmen were working on daily wage basis as a labourer and none of
\nthe workmen has completed 240 days continuous service and as and when
\nwork required they were called by petitioners and lastly, on
\n21.10.1991, 12.11.1991 and 8.12.1991 by Regd.A.D. letter, workmen
\nwere called by petitioners but, they were not remained present and
\nnot resumed the duty and therefore,  according to reply, there is no
\ntermination order passed by petitioners. Before the labour Court,
\neach workman was examined and gave evidence and documents have been
\nproduced on record. The petitioners have also produced muster of
\ndaily rated employees as referred in Para.6 and Shri Aniruddh Trivedi
\nwas examined being Dy. Executive Engineer vide Exh.31. The defence
\nwhich has been taken by petitioners that workmen stopped coming to
\nduty and there was no termination made by petitioners. According to
\nworkmen, no documents have been given by petitioners to the workmen
\nabout appointment, muster card, identity card, pay slip and voucher.
\nTherefore, it is very difficult for workmen to prove presence during
\nthe period where they were remained in service. Vide Exh.23 and
\nExh.55, prayer was made by workmen before labour Court to direct the
\npetitioners to produce relevant records before labour Court. Certain
\ndecisions have been considered which have been relied by workmen
\nbefore labour Court as referred in award. The written arguments were
\nproduced on record by petitioners vide Exh.53 and according to
\nwritten arguments, none of the workmen has completed 240 days
\ncontinuous service and burden is upon the workmen to prove it, which
\nhas not been proved by workmen. Therefore, labour Court should not
\nhave to presume 240 days completed by each workman. Vide Exh.17,
\nKatuben was examined; vide Exh.19 Bhikhabhai Mohanbhai was examined;
\nvide Exh.7  Jakalben Mohanbhai was examined and they were required to
\nwork on Madhiya road doing miscellaneous work receiving Rs.24.75 ps.
\ndaily wage from petitioners. Vide Exh.19 Shir Vasrambhai was
\nexamined; and Shamu Tapu was also examined and they are related to
\neach other and considering evidence of workmen as well as Shri
\nAniruddh Trivedi, witness of petitioners, certain decisions have been
\nrelied by both parties before labour Court. Thereafter, issues have
\nbeen framed by labour Court and it has been decided in Para.10 by the
\nlabour Court. The labour Court has considered evidence of witness of
\npetitioners vide Exh.31. This witness has admitted before labour
\nCourt that he is not knowing the concerned workmen those who were
\nappointed or engaged for doing miscellaneous work on
\nBhavnagar-Ahmedabad shot road doing work on road and they were
\nengaged in the year of 1990-91. The repairing work of road is a
\ncontinuous work and it required 15 to 17 daily wager and witness is
\nnot aware about that what work has been carried out by these workmen.
\nThe labour Court has come to conclusion that no engagement order has
\nbeen given by petitioners, even no termination order is also given by
\npetitioners and witness of petitioners is not having any information
\nor personal facts in respect to nature of work performed by workmen.
\nIt is not an appointment made by petitioners to the workmen on
\nproject, for that there is no written order has been issued in favour
\nof workmen. Therefore, labour Court has considered definition of
\n‘retrenchment’ with an exception Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. The
\ndetails of working days  which statement was produced by petitioners
\nvide Exh.12 where names of labourers means workmen concerned and
\nworking days have been given which was prepared by petitioners on
\nbasis of documents. On basis of aforesaid documents, witness of
\npetitioners at Exh.31 has made clear statement that none of the
\nworkmen has completed 240 days continuous service. But in
\ncross-examination, said witness has admitted that muster roll, pay
\nregister are maintained by petitioners and only xerox copy of
\npresence register statement was produced on record but original
\npresence register was not produced on record. Vide Exh.35 to 49 again
\ndetails of working days has been produced on record along with Exh.12
\nstatement in respect to each workman. But, it is necessary to note
\nthat statement at Exh.12 pertains to only year 1990-91 where there is
\nan ambiguity in respect to days of each workman. The reasoning given
\nby Labour Court, however considering details of working days in
\nrespect to each workman produced on record by petitioners, the labour
\nCourt has come to conclusion that petitioners have not produced any
\noriginal record before the labour Court but, merely a statement which
\nhas been prepared has been produced vide Exh.12 and Exh.35 to Exh.49
\nwhere considering working days of each workman, none of the workmen
\nhas completed continuous service of 240 days, as required under
\nSection 25(B) of I.D.Act. Looking to documents which has been
\nproduced on record Exh.12, Exh.35 to Exh.49, some of the workmen were
\nalso in service in the year 1989. Therefore, labour Court has come to
\nconclusion that on basis of evidence of workmen, they were completed
\n240 days continuous service in each year with petitioners but, that
\nfacts have not been disproved by petitioners before labour Court
\nwhile leading proper evidence on record or while producing relevant
\noriginal documents on record. Therefore, labour Court has relied upon
\ndecision of Apex Court reported in 2007 (1) SCC (L&S) 961 and the
\ndecision reported in 2005 (1) GLH 340. Considering various decisions
\nwhich have been relied by workmen and also considering Exh.58 the
\nrecord produced by petitioners where details have been given that
\nsome of the persons were newly appointed or engaged by petitioners
\nafter termination of respondents workmen. After appreciating
\naforesaid evidence on record Exh.58, the labour Court has come to
\nconclusion that after 1983, number of labourers have been taken on
\nduty and they are at present also working with petitioners. The
\nwitness of petitioners vide Exh.31 is not having any knowledge in
\nrespect to nature of work performed by workmen and no letter has been
\nproduced on record dated 21.10.1991 12.11.1991 and 19.12.1991 by
\npetitioners. From perusal of record and oral evidence of witness of
\npetitioners, the work which was carried out by workmen is remained
\ncontinued and also at present continued and petitioners are not able
\nto prove the facts before the labour Court that workmen have left the
\njob at their own volition and there is no question of termination by
\npetitioners. The petitioners have not served any notice to workmen
\nbecause of absence and no procedure has been followed before
\nterminating services of workmen. The seniority list is also not
\npublished before 7 days in advance from date of termination.\n<\/p>\n
5.1\tIn
\nlight of the aforesaid evidence which are on record, the labour Court
\nhas come to conclusion that services of workmen has been illegally
\nterminated, those who have completed continuous service of 240 days
\nin a proceeding 12 months from date of termination and Section 25(F),
\n(G) and (H) of I.D.Act has been violated by petitioners. Therefore,
\nonly reinstatement order has been passed in favour of workmen without
\ngiving any back wages of interim period with consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIt
\nis necessary to note that evidence of workmen remained as it is and
\naccording to their evidence, they were remained in service with
\npetitioners for about more than 8 years and completed 240 days
\ncontinuous service in different year. That facts remained
\nunchallenged because there is no rebuttal evidence has been produced
\nby petitioners before labour Court that they were not remained in
\nservice for a period of 8 years continuously with petitioners. The
\ndetails of working days or presence of workmen which were given, it
\nis not a complete details as observed by labour Court. Therefore,
\npetitioners have produced certain records and certain records have
\nnot been produced before labour Court. So in absence of complete
\nrecord for entire period, during which workmen were in service, the
\nlabour Court has relied upon evidence of workmen and come to
\nconclusion that workmen have completed continuous service of 240 days
\nduring the period of 12 months from date of termination.\n<\/p>\n
7.
\n\tIn light of this background, in the recent decision of Apex Court in
\ncase of Director, Fisheries Terminal Division v. Bhikubhai
\nMeghajibhai Chavada reported in 2010 AIR SCW 542, similar question
\nhas been examined by Apex Court. Relevant observations are in Para.9
\nto 16 which are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 9.\tPer
\ncontra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
\nworkman immediately after his services were terminated by the
\nemployer, had approached the conciliation officer and on failure of
\nthe conciliation proceedings, had approached the State government to
\nmake reference of the dispute for adjudication before the labour
\ncourt and, therefore, it cannot be said that the workman had
\napproached the labour court after a long lapse of time. It is further
\nsubmitted, that, the workman in his evidence, categorically had made
\nstatement before the labour court that he had worked for more than
\n240 days in a preceding year and, since that evidence is not rebutted
\nby the employer by producing the relevant oral and documentary
\nevidence which would be in their possession, the labour court was
\njustified in drawing adverse inference against the employer. It was
\nfurther submitted, that, since the appellant failed to prove before
\nthe labour court by producing necessary evidence that the appellant
\nindustry is seasonal in nature, the labour court has not committed
\nany error whatsoever, to accept the oral assertion made by the
\nappellant before the labour court. It is further submitted, since the
\nfindings of the labour court cannot be said as perverse findings or
\nbased on no evidence, the High Court was justified in declining to
\ninterfere with the findings of fact by the labour court in a petition
\nfiled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
10)\tFrom
\nthe facts as set out herein above and the submissions made by the
\nlearned counsel for the parties, the question that requires to be
\ndecided whether the labour court and the High Court was justified in
\nallowing the claim of the workman. It is not the case of the
\nappellant that it is not an industry as defined under Section 2(J) of
\nthe Act, but it was its specific stand before the labour court and
\nalso the High Court that it is only a seasonal industry and employ
\nworkman like the respondent only during fishing season and are
\nrelieved at the end of the season and, therefore, the labour court
\nand the High Court were not justified in not only directing the
\nreinstatement of workman into service but also the payment of back
\nwages. This submission of the learned counsel in the appeal requires
\nto be answered with reference to Section 25A of Industrial Disputes
\nAct. The Section is as under:\n<\/p>\n
 25A.\n<\/p>\n
Application of sections 25C to 25E.-(1) Sections 25C to 25E inclusive
\n[shall not apply to industrial establishments to which Chapter VB
\napplies, or–] (a) to industrial establishments in which less than
\nfifty workmen on an average per working day have been employed in the
\npreceding calendar month; or (b) to industrial establishments which
\nare of a seasonal character or in which work is performed only
\nintermittently.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tIf
\na question arises whether an industrial establishment is of a
\nseasonal character or whether work is performed therein only
\nintermittently, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon
\nshall be final.\n<\/p>\n
11)\tIt
\nis now well settled by several judgments of this court, that, where a
\nworkman is employed for a seasonal work or temporary period, the
\nworkman cannot be said to be retrenched in view of Section 2(00)(bb).
\nIt is relevant to take note of what is stated by this court in the
\ncase of Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Ram Kishan<\/a> (1995) 5
\nSCC 653, it was stated by this court :\n<\/p>\n
 ….that
\nsince the work done by the respondents is only a seasonal work, the
\nrespondents cannot be said to have been retrenched in view of what is
\nstated in sub clause (bb) of Section 2(00) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
12)\tIn
\nthe normal course, it is the decision of the appropriate Government
\nwhich is final in determination whether the said industry is seasonal
\nin nature. As has been observed by the labour court and the High
\nCourt, there has been nothing brought on record by the appellants to
\nsupport their contention that fisheries is a seasonal industry. There
\nhas been no order from the Government which has been produced by the
\nappellants to state that the fisheries industry is seasonal. There
\nhas been no mention of any decision on the part of the appropriate
\nGovernment with regard to declaring fisheries as a seasonal industry.
\nTherefore, we concur with the finding of the labour court wherein
\nthey have concluded that the appellant cannot be classified as a
\nseasonal industry.\n<\/p>\n
13)\tThe
\nnext contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
\nrespondent had not worked for 240 days during the preceding twelve
\nmonths on daily wages and, therefore, the respondent cannot claim any
\nprotection under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
\ncase of the respondent before the labour court was that as he had
\ncompleted working for more than 240 days in a year, the purported
\norder of retrenchment is illegal, as conditions precedent as
\ncontained in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were
\nnot complied with.\n<\/p>\n
14)\tSection
\n25B of the Act defines  continuous service . In terms of Sub
\nsection (2) of Section 25B that if a workman during a period of
\ntwelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which
\ncalculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer 240
\ndays within a period of one year, he will be deemed to be in
\ncontinuous service. The respondent claims he was employed in the year
\n1985 as a watchman and his services were retrenched in the year 1991
\nand during the period between 1985 to 1991, he had worked for a
\nperiod of more than 240 days. The burden of proof is on the
\nrespondent to show that he had worked for 240 days in preceding
\ntwelve months prior to his alleged retrenchment.   The law on this
\nissue appears to be now well settled. This court in the case of R.M.
\nYellatty vs. Assistant Executive Engineer<\/a> [(2006) 1 SCC 106], has
\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n
 However,
\napplying general principles and on reading the aforesaid judgments,
\nwe find that this Court, has repeatedly taken the view that the
\nburden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240
\ndays in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman
\nstepping up in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the
\nworkman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases
\nof termination of services of daily-waged earners, there will be no
\nletter of appointment of termination. There will also be no receipt
\nof proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (the claimant)
\ncan only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the
\nnominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment
\nof termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register,
\netc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter
\non the facts of each case.\n<\/p>\n
15)\tApplying
\nthe principles laid down in the above case by this court, the
\nevidence produced by the appellants has not been consistent. The
\nappellants claim that the respondent did not work for 240 days. The
\nrespondent was a workman hired on a daily wage basis. So it is
\nobvious, as this court pointed out in the above case that he would
\nhave difficulty in having access to all the official documents,
\nmuster rolls etc. in connection with his service. He has come forward
\nand deposed, so in our opinion the burden of proof shifts to the
\nemployer\/appellants to prove that he did not complete 240 days of
\nservice in the requisite period to constitute continuous service. It
\nis the contention of the appellant that the services of the
\nrespondent were terminated in 1988. The witness produced by the
\nappellant stated that the respondent stopped coming to work from
\nFebruary, 1988. The documentary evidence produced by the appellant is
\ncontradictory to this fact as it shows that the respondent was
\nworking during February, 1989 also. It has also been observed by the
\nHigh Court that the muster roll for 1986-87 was not completely
\nproduced. The appellants have inexplicably failed to produce the
\ncomplete records and muster rolls from 1985 to 1991, inspite of the
\ndirection issued by the labour court to produce the same. In fact
\nthere has been practically no challenge to the deposition of the
\nrespondent during cross-examination. In this regard, it would be
\npertinent to mention the observation of three judge bench of this
\ncourt in the case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas
\n[(2004) 8 SCC 195], where it is observed:\n<\/p>\n
 A
\nCourt of Law even in a case where provisions of the Indian Evidence
\nAct apply, may presume or may not presume that if a party despite
\npossession of the best evidence had not produced the same, it would
\nhave gone against this contentions. The matter, however, would be
\ndifferent where despite direction by a court the evidence is
\nwithheld.\n<\/p>\n
16)\tIt
\nis not in dispute that the respondent s service was terminated
\nwithout complying with the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial
\nDisputes Act. Section 25G of the Act provides for the procedure for
\nretrenchment. The section reads-\n<\/p>\n
 25G.\n<\/p>\n
Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial
\nestablishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he
\nbelongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in
\nthe absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in
\nthis behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who
\nwas the last person to be employed in that category, unless for
\nreasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.\n<\/p>\n
The
\nlabour court based on the pleadings and evidence on record has come
\nto the conclusion that the services of some of the employees junior
\nto the respondent was continued after the respondent was discharged
\nfrom its duties. The dates of joining of some of the fellow employees
\nof the respondent like Mohanbhai, Kalubhai and Nanjibhai were not
\nproduced by the appellants. The appellants have clearly failed to
\nprove that the services of no junior employee was continued when the
\nservices of the respondent was terminated. Thus, the procedure laid
\ndown in Section 25G has also not been followed. The findings on facts
\nby the labour cannot be termed as perverse and need no interference.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tRecently,
\nthe Apex Court has examined similar aspect in the case of Harjinder
\nSingh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation reported in 2010 (1)
\nScale 613. Relevant observations are in Para.17, 18, 19, 36 to 43,
\nwhich is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 17.
\n    Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while
\nexercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and\/or 227 of the
\nConstitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are
\nduty bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other
\nsimilar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and
\nthe same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set
\nout in the preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained
\nin Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and
\n43A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a
\nsocial order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure
\nequality between men and women and equitable distribution of material
\nresources of the community to sub-serve the common good and also
\nensure that the workers get their dues.  More than 41 years ago,
\nGajendragadkar, J, opined that  the concept of social and economic
\njustice is a living concept of revolutionary import;  it gives
\nsustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the
\nideal of welfare State    State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold
\nMines AIR<\/a> 1958 SC 923.\n<\/p>\n
18.     In Y.A. Mamarde v. Authority under the Minimum Wages Act (1972) 2 SCC 108, this Court, while interpreting the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, observed:\n<\/p>\n
 The anxiety on the part of the society for improving the general economic condition of some of its less favoured members appears to be in supersession of the old principle of absolute freedom of contract and the doctrine of laissez faire and in recognition of the new principles of social welfare and common good. Prior to our Constitution this principle was advocated by the movement for liberal employment in civilised countries and the Act which is a pre-constitution measure was the offspring of that movement. Under our present Constitution the State is now expressly directed to endeavour to secure to all workers (whether agricultural, industrial or otherwise) not only bare physical subsistence but a living wage and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure. This Directive Principle of State Policy being conducive to the general interest of the nation as a whole, merely lays down the foundation for appropriate social structure in which the labour will find its place of dignity, legitimately due to it in lieu of its contribution to the progress of national economic prosperity.\n<\/p>\n
19.     The preamble and various Articles contained in Part IV of the Constitution promote social justice so that life of every individual becomes meaningful and he is able to live with human dignity.  The concept of social justice engrafted in the Constitution consists of diverse principles essentially for the orderly growth and development of personality of every citizen.  Social justice is thus an integral part of justice in the generic sense.  Justice is the genus, of which social justice is one of its species.  Social justice is a dynamic devise to mitigate the sufferings of the poor, weak, dalits, tribals and deprived sections of the society and to elevate them to the level of equality to live a life with dignity of person.  In other words, the aim of social justice is to attain substantial degree of social, economic and political equality, which is the legitimate expectation of every section of the society.  In a developing society like ours which is full of unbridgeable and ever widening gaps of inequality in status and of opportunity, law is a catalyst to reach the ladder of justice.  The philosophy of welfare State  and social justice is amply reflected in large number of judgments of this Court, various High Courts, National and State Industrial Tribunals involving interpretation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, Indian Factories Act, Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Bonus Act, Workmen s Compensation Act, the Employees Insurance Act, the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act enacted by different States.\n<\/p>\n
36.\tTherefore, it is clearly the duty of the judiciary to promote a social order in which justice, economic and political informs all the institution of the national life. This was also made clear in Kesavananda Bharati (supra) by Justice Mathew at para 1728, p. 1952 and His Lordship held that the Directive Principles nevertheless are:\n<\/p>\n
 &fundamental in the governance of the country and all the organs of the State, including the judiciary are bound to enforce those directives. The Fundamental Rights themselves have no fixed content; most of them are mere empty vessels into which each generation must pour its content in the light of its experience.\n<\/p>\n
37.\tIn view of such clear enunciation of the legal principles, I am in clear agreement with Brother J. Singhvi that this Court has a duty to interpret statutes with social welfare benefits in such a way as to further the statutory goal and not to frustrate it. In doing so this Court should make an effort to protect the rights of the weaker sections of the society in view of the clear constitutional mandate discussed above.\n<\/p>\n
38.\tThus, social justice, the very signature tune of our Constitution and being deeply embedded in our Constitutional ethos in a way is the arch of the Constitution which ensures rights of the common man to be interpreted in a meaningful way so that life can be lived with human dignity.\n<\/p>\n
39.\tCommenting on the importance of Article 38 in the Constitutional scheme, this court in Sri Srinivasa Theatre and Others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others<\/a> [(1992) 2 SCC 643], held that equality before law is a dynamic concept having many facets. One facet- the most commonly acknowledged- is that there shall be not be any privileged person or class and that none shall be above the law. This Court held that Art 38 contemplates an equal society [Para 10, pg. 651].\n<\/p>\n
40.\tIn Indra Sawhney and Others  vs. Union of India and Others<\/a> [1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217], the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that:\n<\/p>\n
 The content of the expression  equality before law  is illustrated not only by Articles 15 to 18 but also by the several articles in Part IV, in particular, Articles 38, 39, 39-A, 41 and 46.   [at Paras 643, pg. 633] <\/p>\n
41.\tTherefore, the Judges of this Court are not mere phonographic recorders but are empirical social scientists and the interpreters of the social context in which they work. That is why it was said in Authorised Officer, Thanjavur and another vs. S. Naganatha Ayyar and others – [(1979) 3 SCC 466], while interpreting the land reforms Act, that beneficial construction has to be given to welfare legislation. Justice Krishna Iyer, speaking for the Court, made it very clear that even though the judges are  constitutional invigilators and statutory interpreters  they should  also be responsive to part IV of the Constitution being  one of the trinity of the nation s appointed instrumentalities in the transformation of the socio-economic order . The Learned Judge made it very clear that when the Judges when  decode social legislation, they must be animated by a goal oriented approach  and the Learned Judge opined, and if I may say so, unerringly, that in this country  the judiciary is not a mere umpire, as some assume, but an activist catalyst in the constitutional scheme.  [Para 1, p. 468] <\/p>\n
42.\tI am in entire agreement with the aforesaid view and I share the anxiety of my Lord Brother Justice Singhvi about a disturbing contrary trend which is discernible in recent times and which is sought to be justified in the name of globalisation and liberalisation of economy.\n<\/p>\n
43.\tI am of the view that any attempt to dilute the constitutional imperatives in order to promote the so called trends of  Globalisation , may result in precarious consequences. Reports of suicidal deaths of farmers in thousands from all over the country along with escalation of terrorism throw dangerous signal. Here if we may remember Tagore who several decades ago, in a slightly different context spoke of eventualities which may visit us in our mad rush to ape western ways of life. Here if I may quote the immortal words of Tagore:\n<\/p>\n
 We have for over a century been dragged by the prosperous West behind its chariot, choked by the dust, deafened by the noise, humbled by our own helplessness and overwhelmed by the speed. We agreed to acknowledge that this chariot-drive was progress, and the progress was civilization. If we ever ventured to ask  progress toward what, and progress for whom , it was considered to be peculiarly and ridiculously oriental to entertain such ideas about the absoluteness of progress. Of late, a voice has come to us to take count not only of the scientific perfection of the chariot but of the depth of the ditches lying in its path.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn light of aforesaid observations made by Apex Court where decision of this Court challenged before Apex Court by appellant   Fisheries Department wherein also termination is of 1991 and Apex Court has considered that once the evidence is given by workman and on that basis, 240 days working has been established, then burden shifts upon the employer to produce all relevant record or evidence being a rebuttal evidence to disprove the facts stated by workman. That burden has not been discharged by petitioners before labour Court and therefore, according to my opinion, the labour Court has rightly come to conclusion on basis of evidence on record that workman has completed continuous service of 240 days within a meaning of Section 25(B) of I.D.Act.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIt is necessary to note that Section 25(B)(1) requires continue service of 1 years which has been completed by each workman irrespective of the fact, whether workman has completed 240 days continuous service or not. Section 25(B)(2) of the I.D.Act require to complete 240 days within a period of preceding 12 months from date of termination or considering entire Section 25(B), if it is established by workmen before labour Court, then mandatory provision of Section 25(F) of the I.D.Act is required to be complied with by the petitioners which has not been complied with being a undisputed facts and therefore, relief of reinstatement has been rightly granted in favour of workmen denying entire back wages of more than 20 years to the workmen with consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tTherefore, according to my opinion, contentions raised by learned AGP Mr.Sharma cannot be accepted and looking to evidence on record, conclusion arrived at by labour Court, cannot be considered to be baseless and perverse. On the contrary, conclusion of labour Court is based on legal evidence and workmen’s evidence remained unchallenged because evidence of petitioners Exh.31 is not giving clear evidence before labour Court in respect to facts, and not proved documents which were produced by petitioners and also not proved working days of respondents workmen which were not having in knowledge of facts by said witness. Therefore, there is no rebuttal evidence produced by petitioners before labour Court, against the evidence of workmen. Therefore, according to my opinion, labour Court has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no substance in present petition. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(H.K.RATHOD,J.)
\n(vipul)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Katuben on 4 March, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2861\/2010 9\/ 20 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2861 of 2010 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2868 of 2010 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/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-121739","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Katuben on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Katuben on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-13T12:48:05+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Katuben on 4 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-13T12:48:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5604,\"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\\\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Katuben on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-13T12:48:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Katuben on 4 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"State vs Katuben on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Katuben on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-13T12:48:05+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Katuben on 4 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-13T12:48:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010"},"wordCount":5604,"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\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010","name":"State vs Katuben on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-13T12:48:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-katuben-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Katuben on 4 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/121739","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=121739"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121739\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121739"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121739"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121739"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}