{"id":125945,"date":"2009-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-03T03:05:24","modified_gmt":"2017-05-02T21:35:24","slug":"manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Manager vs General Secretary on 17 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Manager vs General Secretary on 17 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 29980 of 2001(R)\n\n\n\n1. MANAGER,MOONGALAR ESTATE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. GENERAL SECRETARY,HIGH RANGE ESTATE,AITU\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :17\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                           V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n                  ---------------------------------------------\n                      O.P.No. 29980 of 2001 - R\n                  ---------------------------------------------\n                 Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
             The Management in           I.D.No.42\/99 pending before the<\/p>\n
Industrial Tribunal, Idukki is the petitioner in these proceedings in<\/p>\n
which Ext.P4 is challenged.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   Ext.P4 is a preliminary order passed by the said Industrial<\/p>\n
Tribunal on the basis of the preliminary question raised by the<\/p>\n
management as discernible from paragraph 6 of Ext.P2 written<\/p>\n
statement filed by it. As per Ext.P4 order, the learned Tribunal found<\/p>\n
that the domestic enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of<\/p>\n
natural justice and accordingly, the domestic enquiry is set aside.<\/p>\n
But, in Ext.P4 order, the Tribunal has reserved the right of the<\/p>\n
management to adduce fresh evidence to prove the charge against<\/p>\n
the workman.     Ext.P4 order is impugned on various grounds.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though show cause<\/p>\n
notice was given to the workman, there was no response and no<\/p>\n
explanation was given by the workman. It is also pointed out that on<\/p>\n
19.1.1998, 2.2.1998, 7.2.1998, 5.3.1998, 21.3.1998, 15.4.1998 and<\/p>\n
23.4.1998, the Domestic Enquiry Officer had given opportunity to the<\/p>\n
workman to participate in the enquiry proceedings and the workman<\/p>\n
OP NO.29980 of 2001<\/p>\n
                                :-2-:\n<\/p>\n
without appearing and co-operating in the enquiry,         sought<\/p>\n
adjournment on flimsy grounds. It is also the case of learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner that during the preliminary enquiry, the<\/p>\n
management has adduced evidence by examining the witnesses<\/p>\n
from their side and also produced Ext.M1, the documentary<\/p>\n
evidence pertaining to the enquiry proceedings including the<\/p>\n
enquiry report and the documents relied on by the management.<\/p>\n
But, according to the learned counsel, the tribunal, even in the<\/p>\n
absence of any evidence either oral or documentary from the part<\/p>\n
of the workman, regarding their contention with respect the denial<\/p>\n
of opportunity, came into a conclusion that there is violation of<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice, which is against the evidence and<\/p>\n
materials on record. Therefore, according to the learned counsel,<\/p>\n
in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the contention of<\/p>\n
the workman that no opportunity was given to the workman, the<\/p>\n
preliminary finding of the tribunal is liable to be set aide.    In<\/p>\n
support of the above submission, learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Bank of<\/p>\n
India v. Apurba Kumar Saha<\/a>          [1994-II LLN 56]. In the said<\/p>\n
decision, the Apex Court had observed that the employee, after<\/p>\n
avoiding filing of written explanation for charges of misconduct<\/p>\n
OP NO.29980 of 2001<\/p>\n
                                :-3-:\n<\/p>\n
levelled against him and refusing to participate without any valid<\/p>\n
reason in disciplinary proceedings, cannot be permitted to<\/p>\n
complain later that he had been denied of a reasonable<\/p>\n
opportunity to defend himself.\n<\/p>\n
       3.   On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
first respondent\/workman submits that the workman, against<\/p>\n
whom the proceedings were initiated, is illiterate and he cannot<\/p>\n
face the charge without proper and valid assistance from a man<\/p>\n
like a representative of the union or Advocate.     Therefore, to<\/p>\n
make the opportunity meaningful and effective, the assistance of a<\/p>\n
representative of the union was necessary, especially in the light of<\/p>\n
the complicated facts and legal issues involved in the case.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that on<\/p>\n
various occasions, the enquiry was adjourned not exclusively at<\/p>\n
the instance of the workman and there was also contribution from<\/p>\n
the part of the management for adjourning the hearing and to<\/p>\n
substantiate the above contention, he had invited my attention to<\/p>\n
the proceedings of the Domestic Enquiry Officer. It is also the<\/p>\n
case of counsel for the first respondent that the management can<\/p>\n
also adduce evidence to substantiate the charge as their right was<\/p>\n
reserved in the impugned order and therefore, there is no scope<\/p>\n
OP NO.29980 of 2001<\/p>\n
                                 :-4-:\n<\/p>\n
for interfering with Ext.P4 order at this stage.<\/p>\n
       4.     I have carefully considered the contentions advanced<\/p>\n
by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the first<\/p>\n
respondent. I have also perused Ext.P4 order. In Ext.P4, the<\/p>\n
tribunal has recited the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer. After<\/p>\n
appreciating the above procedure, the tribunal has found that the<\/p>\n
Enquiry Officer was not justified in rejecting the application for<\/p>\n
adjournment submitted by the workman on 23.4.1998, on the<\/p>\n
ground that his union representative’s relative died and therefore,<\/p>\n
the representative was not in a position to participate in the<\/p>\n
domestic enquiry. In page 36 of Ext.P3, the said application of the<\/p>\n
workman has been exhibited. On a reading of the request of the<\/p>\n
workman, it can be seen that he had requested for the<\/p>\n
adjournment of the proceedings on 23.4.1998 as the union<\/p>\n
representative was unable to attend the proceedings on that date<\/p>\n
since his relative expired and the representative went for attending<\/p>\n
the same. According to the Tribunal, the reason given by the<\/p>\n
workman for seeking adjournment on 23.4.1998 is reasonable and<\/p>\n
justified and thus, it was found that the Enquiry Officer should have<\/p>\n
granted an adjournment of the domestic enquiry which was<\/p>\n
scheduled on 23.4.1998 for the purpose of providing the workman<\/p>\n
OP NO.29980 of 2001<\/p>\n
                                   :-5-:\n<\/p>\n
an opportunity for participating in the domestic enquiry.<\/p>\n
       5.   The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India is not to sit as an appellate authority upon the<\/p>\n
finding of the Industrial Tribunal whether preliminary or final. In<\/p>\n
this juncture, it is relevant to note that so far, the management has<\/p>\n
no dispute regarding the genuineness and bonafide of the ground<\/p>\n
mentioned in the application submitted by the workman before the<\/p>\n
Enquiry Officer. Of course, the attitude of the workman regarding<\/p>\n
his approach towards the enquiry proceedings               has to be<\/p>\n
assessed from the entire facts and circumstances involved in the<\/p>\n
case.     As pointed out by the learned counsel for the first<\/p>\n
respondent, the enquiry was postponed not only at the instance of<\/p>\n
the workman and that too was not on reasonable grounds. As<\/p>\n
observed by the tribunal itself in Ext.P4 order, on 19.1.1998, the<\/p>\n
workman submitted an application for adjournment of the enquiry<\/p>\n
stating that the union representative had to attend a labour<\/p>\n
conference on that day. On 7.2.1998, the workman submitted an<\/p>\n
application requesting to give him a copy of the complaint and<\/p>\n
witness schedule of the management and also requested for<\/p>\n
adjournment.      It was subsequently, the workman was informed<\/p>\n
about the names of the witnesses of the management and also<\/p>\n
OP NO.29980 of 2001<\/p>\n
                                 :-6-:\n<\/p>\n
given a copy of the complaint.        On 5.3.1998, the request for<\/p>\n
adjournment was on the ground that the Union Secretary was<\/p>\n
hospitalised. It is also relevant to note that on all occasions, after<\/p>\n
having satisfied with the reasons stated in the application, the<\/p>\n
enquiry was adjourned.      But on 23.4.1998, the request of the<\/p>\n
workman was declined.         It is, thereafter, the enquiry was<\/p>\n
concluded.       As evidenced by the application made by the<\/p>\n
workman in Ext.P3 mentioned earlier on 23.4.1998, he was not<\/p>\n
able to participate in the enquiry without the assistance of a<\/p>\n
representative of his own choice.       So, on the ground that on<\/p>\n
23.4.1998, the workman sought an adjournment and it cannot be<\/p>\n
said that the prayer of the workman was arbitrary or without any<\/p>\n
bona fides or it was a lame excuse.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The principles of natural justice demand to give effective<\/p>\n
and meaningful opportunity to the workman and the same cannot<\/p>\n
be denied arbitrarily and unreasonably. In the decision relied on<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court has<\/p>\n
found that     the workman has refused to participate in the<\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings without any valid reason. But in the<\/p>\n
present case, as evidenced by Ext.P3, he sought adjournment on<\/p>\n
valid ground and the same was not disputed by the management.<\/p>\n
OP NO.29980 of 2001<\/p>\n
                                 :-7-:\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is absolutely correct and no<\/p>\n
interference is called for. It is also relevant to note that as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 order, as requested by the management, the right to<\/p>\n
adduce evidence was also reserved. Therefore, it is free to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, if so advised, to adduce evidence and to substantiate<\/p>\n
their contentions in support of the charge levelled against the<\/p>\n
workman.\n<\/p>\n
              In the light of the above facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
the case, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition<\/p>\n
and accordingly, the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    V.K.Mohanan,
\n                                                       Judge<\/p>\n
MBS\/<\/p>\n
OP NO.29980 of 2001<\/p>\n
                        :-8-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                       ——————————————–<\/p>\n
                                O.P.NO. 29980 OF 2001\n<\/p>\n
                       ——————————————–<\/p>\n
                                   J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
                               DATED: 17-6-2009<\/p>\n
OP NO.29980 of 2001<\/p>\n
                       :-9-:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Manager vs General Secretary on 17 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 29980 of 2001(R) 1. MANAGER,MOONGALAR ESTATE … Petitioner Vs 1. GENERAL SECRETARY,HIGH RANGE ESTATE,AITU … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN Dated :17\/06\/2009 O R D E R V.K.MOHANAN, […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-125945","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManager vs General Secretary on 17 June, 2009 - 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\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manager vs General Secretary on 17 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-02T21:35:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manager vs General Secretary on 17 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-02T21:35:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1409,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Manager vs General Secretary on 17 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-02T21:35:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manager vs General Secretary on 17 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Manager vs General Secretary on 17 June, 2009 - 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\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manager vs General Secretary on 17 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-02T21:35:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manager vs General Secretary on 17 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-02T21:35:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009"},"wordCount":1409,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009","name":"Manager vs General Secretary on 17 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-02T21:35:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manager-vs-general-secretary-on-17-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manager vs General Secretary on 17 June, 2009"}]},{"@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\/125945","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=125945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125945\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}