{"id":123776,"date":"1975-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975"},"modified":"2019-01-22T14:26:12","modified_gmt":"2019-01-22T08:56:12","slug":"anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975","title":{"rendered":"Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975<\/div>\n
Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh<\/div>\n
            said writ petitioner.  If so, it\nfollows that the order of the High Court directing the State\nGovernment  to issue permission to the two writ\t petitioners\nignoring the above circumstances is clearly erroneous.\nFrom  what is stated above, the judgment of the\t High  Court\nallowing Special Civil Application Nos. 420 and 421 of\t1966\ncannot be sustained.\nComing\tto  appeal No. 878 of 1968, the facts lie  within  a\nvery  narrow  compass.\t For the  year\t1965-66,  the  third\nrespondent in Special Civil Application d unambiguous provision.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nSection 7 of the Bonus Act provides as to how the direct tax\npayable\t by an employer is to be calculated for the  purpose\nof  computing  the available surplus.  Clause (e)  of  s.  7\nenacts\tthat  no account shall be taken of any\t'rebate'  or\n'relief'  or  deduction\t in the payment of  any\t direct\t tax\nallowed\t under any law for the time being in force  relating\nto direct taxes or under the relevant annual Finance Act for\nthe development of any industry.\nin the case of an industrial company, which is not a company\nin  which public ,arc substantially interested, the  Finance\nAct. 1966 fixed the rate of income-tax at 55% on so much  of\nthe  total  income as did not exceed Rs. ten lakhs,  on\t the\nbalance, if any, of the total income 60% and 65% in the case\nof any other ,company.\nIn a dispute between its employees and the appellant,  which\nis  an industrial company the latter contended-that for\t the\npurpose\t of computing the available surplus it was  entitled\nto  deduct  direct tax at 65% and not 55% which was  only  a\nconfessional levy amounting to a 'relief' for the purpose of\ndevelopment.   The Tribunal accepted the contention  of\t the\nappellant.   The  High Court allowed the  respondent's\twrit\npetition under Art. 227 of the Constitution holding that the\ncompany\t  being\t an  industrial\t company  could\t not   claim\ndeduction  at  a  rate higher than 55%\tin  calculating\t the\navailable surplus.\nOn  appeal it was contended that the 10% concession  in\t the\nrate  was  given  to industrial companies  with\t a  view  to\npromote\t development of industry and as such must be  deemed\nto  be\ta 'relief' or 'rebate' in be payment of\t direct\t tax\ncontemplated by s. 7(e) of the Bonus Act.  Reliance for this\nhad been placed on the speech of the Finance Minister on the\nbudget for the year 1966-67.\nDismissing the appeal,\nHELD  :\t (1) The company being an  industrial  company\twith\ntotal income not exceeding rupees ten lakhs the rate of\t tax\nunder\tparagraph  1(A)(2)(i)  of  the\tFinance\t Act.\t1966\napplicable  to it was 55% and not 65% of the  total  income.\n[544H-545A]\n(2)  The  'rebate  or relief' in the payment of\t any  direct\ntax, in order to fall within the purview of s. 7(e) of Bonus\nAct.  must be a rebate or relief \"allowed under any law\t for\nthe  time being in force relating. to direct taxes or  under\nthe  relevant  Finance\tAct.  for  the\tdevelopment  of\t any\nindustry\"  which is one of the conditions to  be  satisfied.\nIn the present case it did not satisfy this condition.\t The\nFinance Act, 1966 did not say that this difference of 10% in\nthe rate of tax applicable to an industrial company and\t any\nother  company is to be deemed to be a rebate or relief\t for\nthe  development  of industry.\tNo, has it been\t shown\tthat\nthis  difference  in  the rates is allowed as  a  rebate  or\nrelief under any other extant law relating to direct  taxes.\n[545F-H]\n3  (a)\tIt  was not permissible to use\tthe  speech  of\t the\nFinance\t Minister  to  construe the clear  language  of\t the\nstatute. [545C-D]\n(b)  As\t a  general principle of interpretation,  where\t the\nwords  of a statute are ,plain, precise and unambiguous\t the\nintention  of  the Legislature has to be gathered  from\t the\nlanguage of the statute itself and no external evidence such\nas  Parliamentary debate-, Reports of the Committees of\t the\nLegislature  or even the statement made by the\tMinister  on\nthe  introduction of a measure or by the framers of the\t Act\nis  admissible to construe those words.\t It is only where  a\nstatute\t  is  not  exhaustive  or  where  its  language\t  is\nambiguous, uncertain, clouded or susceptible of more\n 543\nthan one meaning or shades of meaning that external evidence\nas  to the evils. if any. which the statute was intended  to\nremedy. or of the circumstances which led to the passing  of\nthe statute may be looked into for the purpose of ascertain-\ning  the object which the Legislature had in view  in  using\nthe words in question. [545D-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2053 of 1971.
\nAppeal by special leave from the Judgment & Order dated\t the
\n8th  July,  1971  of the Bombay High  Court  in\t S.C.A.\t No.
\n1346\/68.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C.\t Bhandare,  P. H. Parekh and S.\t Bhandare,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSARKARIA,  J.-Whether the difference of 10 per cent  between
\nan  Industrial\tCompany and other Companies in the  levy  of
\nIncome-tax  provided  in  the Finance Act,  1966  is  to  be
\nconstrued  a  “rebate”\tor “relief” in the  payment  of\t any
\ndirect\ttax,  for  the development of an  industry  for\t the
\npurposes of S. 7(e) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965,\t(for
\nshort, the Bonus Act) is the short question that falls to be
\nanswered in this appeal by special leave.
\nThe  appellant is a Private Ltd.  Company.  it\tmanufactures
\nautomobile  ancillaries\t and other goods in its\t Factory  at
\nBombay.\t It employs about 170 workmen.\tThe workmen demanded
\nbonus for the year 1964-65.  Their demand was not met by the
\nCompany.   Conciliation proceedings before the\tConciliation
\nOfficer\t having\t failed, the dispute was  submitted  to\t the
\nGovernment  which by its Order, dated May 2,  1967  referred
\nthe same for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal.
\nOne of the points mooted before the Tribunal was, whether in
\ncalculating the available surplus, the direct tax payable by
\nthe Company was deductible at the rate of 55 per cent or  65
\nper cent.  The case of the Mazdoor Saneh (Respondent No.  1)
\nwas  that the rate should be 55 per cent as the Company\t was
\npaying\tthe  tax at the rate As against\t this,\tthe  Company
\ncontended  that it was entitled to deduct as per s. 7(e)  of
\nthe Bonus Act, direct tax at the normal rate of 65 per\tcent
\nand  not at 55 per cent which was only a  confessional\tlevy
\namounting to a “relief” for the purpose of development.
\nThe Tribunal accepted the contention of the Company.   After
\nreferring  to  the  speech of the Finance  Minister  on\t the
\nBudget of 196667, the Tribunal held:\n<\/p>\n
\t      assessed\tto income tax at the rate of 65\t per
\n\t      cent, those engaged in industrial undertakings
\n\t      have been assessed at the concessional rate of
\n\t      55  per  cent,  as  a  measure  of   rendering
\n\t      assistance to their growth.  Such a concession
\n\t      would, unquestionably amount to relief for the
\n\t      purpose  of  development\tas  contemplated  by
\n\t      Section 7(e) of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Aggrieved, the Mazdoor Sangh impugned the Tribunal’s Award,
\ndated 29-2-1968, by a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the
\nCon-\n<\/p>\n
544<\/span><\/p>\n
stitution  before the High Court of Bombay.  The High  Court
\nheld  that  the\t Company being an  Industrial  Company,\t was
\nliable to pay tax under the Finance Act, 1966 at the rate of
\n55%  only on its total income after deducting  depreciation.
\nTherefore it could not claim deduction at a rate higher than
\n55%  in calculating the available surplus.  In\tthe  result,
\nthe High Court set aside the Award and remitted the case  to
\nthe  Tribunal for further disposal in accordance  with\tlaw.
\nHence this appeal by the Company.\n<\/p>\n
Broadly, the scheme of the Bonus Act is this : At first, the
\ngross  profits derived by an employer from an  establishment
\nare  calculated\t in  the  manner  specified  in\t the   First
\nSchedule,   or\tthe  Second  Schedule,\twhichever   may\t  be
\napplicable (s. 4).  On the basis of such gross profits,\t the
\navailable  surplus  for the particular\taccounting  year  is
\ncomputed.   This  is done by deducting\ttherefrom  the\tsums
\nreferred to in Section 6. According to Clause (c) of Section
\n6, one of the sums so deductible is:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Subject\tto the provisions of Section 7,\t any
\n\t      direct tax which the employer is liable to pay
\n\t      for  the\taccounting year in  respect  of\t his
\n\t      income, profits and gains during that year”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 7, to which s. 6(c) is subject, provides how for the
\npurposes of the Act, the direct tax payable by the  employer
\nis  to be calculated.  Clause (e) of Section 7 is  material.
\nIt runs thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “no  account  shall  be taken  of\t any  rebate
\n\t      (other than development rebate or\t development
\n\t      allowance)  or credit or relief  or  deduction
\n\t      (not hereinbefore mentioned in section) in the
\n\t      payment  of any direct tax allowed  under\t any
\n\t      law  for the time being in force\trelating  to
\n\t      direct  taxes  or under  the  relevant  annual
\n\t      Finance  Act,  for  the  development  of\t any
\n\t      industry”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The   rates  of\t income-tax  applicable\t to   Private\tLtd.
\nCompanies  tinder Paragraph F, Part I of the First  Schedule
\nfixed by the Finance Act, 1966, are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.    In\tthe  case of a\tdomestic  Company(A)
\n\t      (1)….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   where  the Company is not a\t company  in
\n\t      which the public are substantially interested.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   in the case of an industrial Company-
\n\t      (1)   on\tso much of the total income as\tdoes
\n\t      not exceed Rs. 10,00,000-55 per cent.
\n\t      (2)   on\tthe  balance, if any  of  the  total
\n\t      income-60 per cent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  in\tany other case–65 per cent  of\t the
\n\t      total income”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tnot disputed that the Company  being  an  industrial
\nCompany\t with  total  income  for  the\trelevant  year,\t not
\nexceeding Rs. 10,00,900,,
\n 545<\/span>
\nthe  rate  of  tax under the above Paragaph  1(A)  (2)\t(i),
\napplicable to it was 55 per cent and not 65 per cent of\t the
\ntotal  income.\tHowever, Mr. Bhandare’s contention  is\tthat
\nthis  was only a concessional rate and not the\tnormal\trate
\nwhich  was  prescribed\tunder  Clause  (ii)  of\t the   above
\nParagraph 1(A) (2).  The point pressed into argument is that
\nthis  ten per cent concession in the tax-rate was  given  to
\nIndustrial  Companies with a view to promote development  of
\nIndustry  and, as such, must be deemed to be a\t“relief”  or
\n“rebate”   in  the  payment  of\t direct\t tax  of  the\tkind
\ncontemplated by Section 7(e) of the Act.  Reliance for\tthis
\ncontention  has\t been placed on the speech  of\tthe  Finance
\nMinister  on the Budget of 1966-67, wherein he\tproposed  to
\nprovide “certain reliefs” which he considered “necessary for
\nproviding  a  suitable\tclimate of  growth”,  and,  in\tthat
\ncontext,  described  the  rate\tof  55%\t tax  on  Industrial
\nCompanies as a “concessional rate”.\n<\/p>\n
We  are afraid what the Finance Minister said in his  speech
\ncannot\tbe  imported  into  this  case\tand  used  for\t the
\nconstruction  of  Clause (e) of Section 7. The\tlanguage  of
\nthat provision is manifestly clear and unequivocal.  It\t has
\nto  be\tconstrued  as  it stands,  according  to  its  plain
\ngrammatical sense without addition or deletion of any words.
\nAs a general principle of interpretation, where the words of
\na statute are plain, precise and unambiguous, the  intention
\nof  the Legislature is to be gathered from the\tlanguage  of
\nthe  statute  itself  and  no  external\t evidence  such\t  as
\nParliamentary  Debates,\t Reports of the\t Committees  of\t the
\nLegislature  or even the statement made by the\tMinister  on
\nthe  introduction of a measure or by the framers of the\t Act
\nis  admissible to construe those words.\t It is only where  a
\nstatute\t  is  not  exhaustive  or  where  its  language\t  is
\nambiguous,  uncertain, clouded or susceptible of  more\tthan
\none meaning or shades of meaning, that external evidence  as
\nto  the\t evils, if any, which the statute  was\tintended  to
\nremedy, or of the circumstances which led to the passing  of
\nthe statute may be looked into for the purpose of ascertain-
\ning  the object which the Legislature had in view  in  using
\nthe words in question.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t case  before us, the language of  Section  7(e)  is
\ncrystal\t  clear\t  and  self-contained.\t It   indicates\t  in
\nunmistakable  terms  that  the ‘rebate\tor  relief’  in\t the
\npayment\t of  any  direct tax in order  to  fall\t within\t the
\npurview\t of this clause must satisfy two  conditions,  viz.,\n<\/p>\n
(i)  that it must be a rebate or relief “allowed  under\t any
\nlaw for the time being in force relating to direct taxes  or
\nunder  the relevant annual Finance Act”, and  further,\t(ii)
\nthat  it must be a relief or rebate for the  development  of
\nany  Industry.\tIn the present case, condition (i) is  lack-
\ning.\n<\/p>\n
The Finance Act, 1966, does not say that this difference  of
\n10per  cent in the rates of tax applicable to an  Industrial
\nCompany and any other Company is to be deemed to be a rebate
\nor relief for the development of Industry.  Nor has it\tbeen
\nshown  that  this difference in the rates is  allowed  as  a
\nrebate\tor  relief under any other extant  law\trelating  to
\ndirect taxes.\n<\/p>\n
546<\/span><\/p>\n
The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that it\t was
\nnot  ,permissible to use the speech of the Finance  Minister
\nto construe-the clear language of the statute,.
\nFor  the  forgoing  reasons  the  question  posed  above  is
\nanswered in the negative and the appeal is dismissed.
\nAs  regards  the costs, the delay in payment  of  the  bonus
\ncaused\tby  the\t pendency  of this  appeal  has\t been  amply
\ncompensated vide this Court’s order dated February 17, 1972,
\nwhich is to this effect
\n“The  order  of\t ex-parte  stay\t is  made  absolute  on\t the
\ncondition  that-  the  petitioner-appellant  shall  pay\t six
\npercent interest on any amount that is found payable by\t the
\nappellant to the respondent-workmen from the date the  award
\nbecome\tenforceable till the disposal of the appeal in\tthis
\nCourt, in case the appeal fails in this Court.”
\nThe  appeal  has been heard ex-parte, we therefore  make  no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n547<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975 Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh said writ petitioner. If so, it follows that the order of the High Court directing the State Government to issue permission to the two writ petitioners ignoring the above circumstances is […]<\/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-123776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAnandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975 - 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\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-22T08:56:12+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-22T08:56:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975\"},\"wordCount\":1544,\"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\\\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975\",\"name\":\"Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-22T08:56:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975 - 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\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-22T08:56:12+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975","datePublished":"1975-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-22T08:56:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975"},"wordCount":1544,"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\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975","name":"Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-22T08:56:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anandji-haridas-co-pvt-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-anr-on-13-february-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975"}]},{"@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\/123776","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=123776"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123776\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}