{"id":123805,"date":"2011-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011"},"modified":"2016-05-22T23:02:47","modified_gmt":"2016-05-22T17:32:47","slug":"the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"The General Manager (Telecom); vs Zarir on 15 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The General Manager (Telecom); vs Zarir on 15 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
     1507wp1721.11.odt                                                                               1\/10\n\n\n                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n                      WRIT PETITION NOS.1721\/2011 & 3055\/2011\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                               ------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.1721\/2011<\/p>\n
     PETITIONERS:                 1.      The General Manager (Telecom);\n<\/p>\n
                                          Telecom Bhavan, Zero Mile,
\n                                          Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440001.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          ig      2.      The Divisional Engineer (Telecom),
\n                                          Microwave Project,
\n                                          C.T.O. Compound, Nagpur – 1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          [As mentioned in statement of claim]<\/p>\n
                                          …VERSUS…\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     RESPONDENTS :                1.      Zarir S\/o Pesi Mawalwala,
\n                                          Aged about 43 years,<\/p>\n
                                          R\/o. Quarter No.72, New Empress
\n                                          Mill Quarters, Bezonbagh,
\n                                          Nagpur.\n<\/p>\n
                                  2.      The Central Government Industrial<\/p>\n
                                          Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur.\n<\/p>\n
                                  3.      Shri Y. R. Bagade,
\n                                          District Secretary,
\n                                          Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Worker’ Union, <\/p>\n
                                          P & T Colony, Qr. No.A\/8, T-I Katol Road,
\n                                          Nagpur.\n<\/p>\n
     —————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                  Mrs. B. P. Maldhure, learned counsel for the petitioners.
\n           Shri. P. D. Meghe, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
     —————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:45 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      1507wp1721.11.odt                                                                               2\/10\n\n\n                                 WRIT PETITION NO.3055\/2011\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n     PETITIONERS:                 1.      Zarir S\/o Pesi Mawalwala,\n                                          Aged about 45 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                                          resident of Quarter No.72, \n                                          New Empress Mills Quarters, \n                                          Bezonbagh, Nagpur. \n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                                  2.      Shri Y. R. Bagade, \n                                          District Secretary, \n                                          BSNL Workers Union, \n                                          P & T Colony, Quarter No.A\/8-1, \n                                          Katol Road, Nagpur. \n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                                          ...VERSUS... \n\n     RESPONDENTS :\n                          ig      1.      General Manager Telecom\n                                          (Now Principal General Manger Telecom),\n                                          BSNL, Telecom Bhavan, \n                        \n                                          '0' Mile, Civil Lines, \n                                          Nagpur.\n\n                                  2.      The Divisional Engineer Telecom,\n      \n\n                                          Microwave Project, CTO Compound, \n                                          Nagpur. \n   \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     —————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                    Shri P. D. Meghe, learned counsel for the petitioners.
\n                 Mrs. B. P. Maldhure, learned counsel for the respondents\n<\/p>\n
     —————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                                                   CORAM :  R. M. SAVANT J.<\/p>\n
\n                                                   DATED   : 15.07.2011 \n\n\n\n\n\n     O R A L     J U D G M E N T\n\n\n\n     1)        Rule   with   the   consent   of   the   parties   made   returnable   forthwith   and \n\n     heard. \n\n\n\n\n                                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:30:45 :::<\/span>\n      1507wp1721.11.odt                                                                             3\/10\n\n\n     2)       The above petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n<\/pre>\n
     of India take exception to the  order dated 20\/01\/2011, by which the Presiding <\/p>\n
     Officer,   Central   Government   Industrial   Tribunal,   Nagpur   answered   the <\/p>\n
     Reference, which was referred to it for adjudication, in favour of the workman <\/p>\n
     i.e. the petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.3055\/2011.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3)        The petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.3055 was initially appointed on <\/p>\n
     21\/01\/1986   as   casual   labour   with   the   Chief   General   Manager,   Railway <\/p>\n
     Electrification   Project   Telecom   and   thereafter   he   was   transferred   to   the <\/p>\n
     Divisional Engineer Telecom, Microwave (Survey) from the year 1989.  He has <\/p>\n
     worked with the respondent BSNL up to 25\/06\/1993 when he was given the <\/p>\n
     temporary   status   by   a   letter   dated   02\/03\/1988   under   the   provisions   of   the <\/p>\n
     Casual Labourer (Grant  of  Temporary  Status and Regularization) Scheme.    It <\/p>\n
     appears   that   by   order   dated   18\/02\/1989,   regularized   69   mazdoors   similarly <\/p>\n
     situated   as   the   petitioner   No.1   was,   issued   with   the   order   of   regularization, <\/p>\n
     however, the petitioner No.1 was not.  It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that <\/p>\n
     he was deprived of various facilities of the regular employees and suddenly on <\/p>\n
     02\/12\/2002 the BSNL terminated his services with immediate effect by written <\/p>\n
     order   on   payment   of   one   month   salary   on   08\/11\/2002.     He   submitted   a <\/p>\n
     representation against the said termination as he has already put in 16 years of <\/p>\n
     service   continuously.   It   was   his   case   that   prior   to   the   said   termination,   no <\/p>\n
     chargesheet  was issued to him  and if any enquiry was  completed,  then such <\/p>\n
     enquiry was conducted without compliance of principles of natural justice, as at <\/p>\n
     no point of time the depositions or statements were recorded on behalf of the <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:45 :::<\/span>
\n      1507wp1721.11.odt                                                                              4\/10<\/p>\n
     party No.1 in his presence and no opportunity of cross-examination was granted <\/p>\n
     to   him   and   thus   the   alleged   enquiry   was   in   utter   disregard   to   the   settled <\/p>\n
     principles applicable to the conduct of the departmental enquiries.  The issue of <\/p>\n
     the termination of the services of the petitioner No.1 was referred to the Central <\/p>\n
     Government   Industrial   Tribunal,   Nagpur.     The   statement   of   claim   was <\/p>\n
     accordingly filed by the petitioner No.1 in the said Reference.\n<\/p>\n
     4)       In   the   written   statement   filed   by   the   BSNL,   the   said   respondents <\/p>\n
     admitted   that   the   petitioner   was   continuously   working   from   21\/01\/1986   till <\/p>\n
     02\/11\/2002 and his services were utilized as casual motor driver on daily rates <\/p>\n
     basis.     It   was   the   case   of   the   respondents   that   an   incident   took   place   on <\/p>\n
     26\/07\/2002 in respect of the loss of some laptops from the vehicle, which the <\/p>\n
     petitioner No.1 was driving and, therefore, an enquiry was initiated against the <\/p>\n
     petitioner   No.1   and   after   following   the   procedure,   his   services   came   to   be <\/p>\n
     terminated.     It   is   further   the   case   of   the   respondents   that   the   procedure   as <\/p>\n
     prescribed under the  Central  Civil  Services  (Temporary Services)   Rules, 1965 <\/p>\n
     was applicable, as the petitioner No.1 at the relevant time was working as a <\/p>\n
     temporary   status   mazdoor,   which   status   stands   apart   from   the   status   of   a <\/p>\n
     confirmed employee.  It was further the case of the respondents that to such a <\/p>\n
     class of employee the chargesheet also need not be issued and a termination can <\/p>\n
     be ordered in terms of the said Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     5)       The   said   Reference   was   tried   by   the   Central   Government   Industrial <\/p>\n
     Tribunal, Nagpur and by the impugned judgment and order dated 20\/01\/2011, <\/p>\n
     the   said   Reference   came   to   be   allowed   inasmuch   as   the   termination   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:45 :::<\/span>
\n      1507wp1721.11.odt                                                                               5\/10<\/p>\n
     petitioner       No.1 dated 02\/11\/2002 was set aside.   It was ordered that the <\/p>\n
     petitioner   No.1   be   reinstated   in   service   with   continuity   in   service   including <\/p>\n
     regularization of service within one month of the publication of the Award.  As <\/p>\n
     indicated above, it is the said order, which is challenged in both the petitions, in <\/p>\n
     so far as Writ Petition No.3055\/2011 is concerned, the petitioner No.1-workman <\/p>\n
     is aggrieved by the fact that full back wages have been denied to him and in so <\/p>\n
     far   as   Writ   Petition   No.1721\/2011   is   concerned,   the   petitioners   BSNL   are <\/p>\n
     aggrieved by the impugned Award of the Tribunal in toto.\n<\/p>\n
     6)<\/p>\n
              Heard the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
              The learned counsel for the petitioner in the Writ Petition No.3055\/2011 <\/p>\n
     Shri   Meghe   would   contend   that   once   the   termination   was   set   aside   on   the <\/p>\n
     ground that the said termination order was passed in violation of the principles <\/p>\n
     of natural justice, the natural corollary to the same would be the reinstatement <\/p>\n
     of the petitioner with full back wages.   For the said purposes Shri Meghe, the <\/p>\n
     learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex <\/p>\n
     Court reported in 2007 AIR SCW 137 in the matter of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.\n<\/p>\n
     P. Agrawal and  anr. wherein  the Apex  Court has held  that once  the Labour <\/p>\n
     Court comes to a conclusion that the charges are not proved, the grant of back <\/p>\n
     wages in such cases would be automatic.  The learned counsel would therefore <\/p>\n
     contend that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur erred in not <\/p>\n
     awarding   full   back   wages,   in   so   far   as   the   challenge   to   the   reinstatement   is <\/p>\n
     concerned,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   workman   Shri   Meghe <\/p>\n
     submitted that in view of the  fact that no modicum of procedure was followed <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:45 :::<\/span>
\n      1507wp1721.11.odt                                                                           6\/10<\/p>\n
     prior to the termination of the services of the petitioner No.1, the Award of the <\/p>\n
     Central   Government   Industrial   Tribunal   in   directing   the   reinstatement   with <\/p>\n
     continuity of service cannot be faulted with.\n<\/p>\n
             Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel Mrs. B.P. Maldhure for the <\/p>\n
     respondent BSNL that it was incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to frame a <\/p>\n
     preliminary   issue   as   regards   the   fairness   of   the   enquiry   as   to   whether   the <\/p>\n
     enquiry was just, fair and proper according to the learned counsel if the Tribunal <\/p>\n
     had recorded a finding against the respondent BSNL, it would have been open <\/p>\n
     for the respondent BSNL to prove the charges by leading evidence in Court.  The <\/p>\n
     learned   counsel   would   contend   that   though   in   terms   of   the   status   of   the <\/p>\n
     petitioner No.1, an elaborate procedure need not be followed nevertheless the <\/p>\n
     BSNL   has   followed   the   procedure   by   holding   an   enquiry   and   thereafter   the <\/p>\n
     termination order dated 02\/11\/2002 came to be issued.   The learned counsel <\/p>\n
     would  then contend  that in  view  of the  fact  that  the  preliminary issue  as  to <\/p>\n
     whether the enquiry was just, fair and proper was not framed, the matter be <\/p>\n
     relegated back to the Tribunal for a de novo consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     7)      Having considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel <\/p>\n
     appearing   for   the   petitioner   workman   and   the   respondent   BSNL,   I   have <\/p>\n
     bestowed my anxious consideration to the same.\n<\/p>\n
             In  the  instant   case,   as  can  be   seen  from   the  record  the   cause  for   the <\/p>\n
     termination order was the enquiry conducted on account of the loss of some <\/p>\n
     laptops from the vehicle, which the petitioner workman was driving.  The stand <\/p>\n
     of the respondent BSNL as can be seen from the record is consistent throughout <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:45 :::<\/span>
\n      1507wp1721.11.odt                                                                                7\/10<\/p>\n
     viz. that the petitioner No.1 was a temporary status mazdoor and, therefore, the <\/p>\n
     Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 was applicable.  It is on <\/p>\n
     the application of the said Rules, that it is the stand of the BSNL that no enquiry <\/p>\n
     is postulated against such a temporary status mazdoor and his services could <\/p>\n
     have been terminated by giving him one month’s notice with pay.\n<\/p>\n
     8)       However,   the   fact   of   the   matter   is   that   an   equiry   has   been   held   into <\/p>\n
     complicity   of   the   petitioner   in   the   loss   of   the   laptops   in   the   said   enquiry, <\/p>\n
     witnesses   were   examined   and   who   were   admittedly   not   offered   for   cross-\n<\/p>\n
     examination to the petitioner.  It is further pertinent to note that the enquiry was <\/p>\n
     not proceeded with a chargesheet, which ought to be issued to the petitioner.  It <\/p>\n
     is an admitted fact that it is on the basis of the said enquiry that the termination <\/p>\n
     order dated 02\/11\/2002 had been issued to the petitioner, the said termination <\/p>\n
     order was outcome of the said enquiry, which has been conducted against the <\/p>\n
     petitioner.   The Tribunal has gone into the said aspect and recorded a finding, <\/p>\n
     which can be seen from paragraph No.9 of the impugned Award.  The Tribunal <\/p>\n
     has recorded that no chargesheet has been issued for the alleged misconduct, <\/p>\n
     the petitioner was not intimated the appointment of the enquiry officer and that <\/p>\n
     the workman was not given any chance for cross-examination of the witnesses <\/p>\n
     or to lead evidence in his defence.  The Tribunal, therefore, reached a conclusion <\/p>\n
     that the workman was never given any reasonable opportunity to defend himself <\/p>\n
     in the said enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
     9)       The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the fact that though it was <\/p>\n
     stated that an FIR has been filed with the Police, nothing was put on record to <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:45 :::<\/span>
\n      1507wp1721.11.odt                                                                                 8\/10<\/p>\n
     show   as   to   what   was   the   result   of   the   investigation   and   as   to   whether   the <\/p>\n
     workman was held responsible by the Police for such theft or that the theft of <\/p>\n
     the laptops was committed due to the negligence of the workman.  It is on the <\/p>\n
     basis   of   the   said   findings   that   the   Tribunal   has   quashed   and   set   aside   the <\/p>\n
     termination order dated 02\/11\/2002 and was ordered the reinstatement of the <\/p>\n
     respondent No.1 with continuity of service and regularization.\n<\/p>\n
     10)      In  so far as  the  submission  of the  learned counsel  for  the  respondent <\/p>\n
     BSNL is concerned, that the Tribunal ought to have framed the preliminary issue <\/p>\n
     as regards the fairness of the enquiry and if the said issue was to have been held <\/p>\n
     against the respondent BSNL, the Tribunal should have granted liberty to the <\/p>\n
     BSNL to prove the misconduct in Court.  In my view, in the context of the fact <\/p>\n
     that   the   defence   of   the   respondent   BSNL   is   replete   with   the   fact   that   the <\/p>\n
     petitioner   workman   was   a   temporary   mazdoor   and   was   governed   by   the <\/p>\n
     Temporary Service Rules and in the teeth of the stand of the respondent BSNL <\/p>\n
     that even an enquiry was not contemplated prior to the services of the petitioner <\/p>\n
     workman,   the   said   submission   cannot   be   countenanced.     In   making   the   said <\/p>\n
     submission, the respondent BSNL is approbating and reprobating, on one hand, <\/p>\n
     it is sought to be contended that no enquiry is postulated against a workman of <\/p>\n
     the kind to which the petitioner belongs and on the other hand, it is sought to be <\/p>\n
     contended that if the enquiry was not found to be just and proper, the petitioner <\/p>\n
     No.1 ought to have been given the opportunity to lead evidence in Court.  In my <\/p>\n
     view, both the things cannot be urged at the same time either the respondent <\/p>\n
     BSNL   sticks   to   its   stand   that   it   is   entitled   to   terminate   the   services   without <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:45 :::<\/span>
\n      1507wp1721.11.odt                                                                                9\/10<\/p>\n
     following the usual procedure of holding the enquiry, etc. or adopts the stand <\/p>\n
     that an enquiry is contemplated.   Having chosen to hold the enquiry without <\/p>\n
     adhering   to   the   basic   principles   of   issuing   a   chargesheet,   etc.   and   the   said <\/p>\n
     procedure having been found to be illegal and in violation of the principles of <\/p>\n
     natural justice by the Tribunal, it is now not open to the BSNL to contend that it <\/p>\n
     should have been permitted to lead evidence in Court.  In my view, there is no <\/p>\n
     substance in the said contention of the respondent BSNL.  The Tribunal also took <\/p>\n
     into   consideration   the   conditions   applicable   to   a   temporary   employee   of   the <\/p>\n
     BSNL which provide that a temporary employees services can be terminated by <\/p>\n
     holding   an   enquiry   into   the   misconduct   alleged   by   giving   him   a   reasonable <\/p>\n
     opportunity.\n<\/p>\n
     11)      However, in so far as the issue of regularization is concerned, that was an <\/p>\n
     issue, which was not even referred to the Tribunal in the Reference order. It is <\/p>\n
     also required to be noted that in the statement of claim what is sought by the <\/p>\n
     petitioner workman is only reinstatement and continuity of service.   Hence, in <\/p>\n
     ordering regularization, the Tribunal has gone beyond the scope of Reference <\/p>\n
     and   the   statement   of   claim   as   filed   before   it.     The   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
     petitioner Shri Meghe fairly accepts the said position. The said direction would <\/p>\n
     therefore have to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     12)      In   so   far   as   the   aspect   of   the   back   wages   is   concerned,   the   Tribunal <\/p>\n
     considered the fact that the petitioner had not averred that he was unemployed <\/p>\n
     during the pendency of the Reference and in that view of the matter the Tribunal <\/p>\n
     was of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served, if the back wages <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:45 :::<\/span>
\n      1507wp1721.11.odt                                                                             10\/10<\/p>\n
     are denied to the petitioner workman.  It is well settled that the grant or refusal <\/p>\n
     of the back wages is within the discretion of the Tribunal to be exercised in the <\/p>\n
     facts   and   circumstances   of   the   present   case.     In   my   view,   in   the   facts   and <\/p>\n
     circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in refusing <\/p>\n
     the back wages cannot be faulted with.\n<\/p>\n
     13)      In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition No.3055\/2011 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule is discharged.   In so far as Writ Petition No.1721\/2011, which is filed by <\/p>\n
     the   BSNL   is   concerned,   the   same   is   partly   allowed   to   the   extent   that   the <\/p>\n
     direction   of   regularization   issued   in   the   impugned   order   is   quashed   and   set <\/p>\n
     aside.  Rule is accordingly made partly absolute in the said writ petition in the <\/p>\n
     said terms with parties to bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
     14)      It   is   expected   that   since   sufficient   time   has   already   elapsed,   the <\/p>\n
     respondent BSNL would implement the Award in question as modified herein <\/p>\n
     above within a period of one month from date.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           JUDGE <\/p>\n
     KHUNTE<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:45 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The General Manager (Telecom); vs Zarir on 15 July, 2011 Bench: R. M. Savant 1507wp1721.11.odt 1\/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NOS.1721\/2011 & 3055\/2011 ———————————————— WRIT PETITION NO.1721\/2011 PETITIONERS: 1. The General Manager (Telecom); Telecom Bhavan, Zero Mile, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440001. ig […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123805","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe General Manager (Telecom); vs Zarir on 15 July, 2011 - 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\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The General Manager (Telecom); vs Zarir on 15 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-22T17:32:47+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\\\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The General Manager (Telecom); vs Zarir on 15 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-22T17:32:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2357,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011\",\"name\":\"The General Manager (Telecom); vs Zarir on 15 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-22T17:32:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The General Manager (Telecom); vs Zarir on 15 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"The General Manager (Telecom); vs Zarir on 15 July, 2011 - 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\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The General Manager (Telecom); vs Zarir on 15 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-22T17:32:47+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\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The General Manager (Telecom); vs Zarir on 15 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-22T17:32:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011"},"wordCount":2357,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011","name":"The General Manager (Telecom); vs Zarir on 15 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-22T17:32:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-telecom-vs-zarir-on-15-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The General Manager (Telecom); vs Zarir on 15 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/123805","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=123805"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123805\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123805"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123805"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123805"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}