{"id":127845,"date":"1956-12-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1956-12-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956"},"modified":"2018-01-28T18:17:17","modified_gmt":"2018-01-28T12:47:17","slug":"punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956","title":{"rendered":"Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial … on 20 December, 1956"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial … on 20 December, 1956<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 276, \t\t 1957 SCR 220<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, S.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSRI RAM KANWAR, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,DELHI.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n20\/12\/1956\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\n\nCITATION:\n 1957 AIR  276\t\t  1957 SCR  220\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial Dispute-Travelling and halting allowances to\t the\nworkers'  representatives-Order\t of the\t Tribunal  directing\nemployer  Payment  of  such  expenses  pending\tadjudication\nproceedings--jurisdiction   -Practice  of   the\t  industrial\nCourts-Costs--Discretion    of\t the,\t Tribunal-Industrial\nDisputes Act 1947 (XIV Of 1947), s. 11(3) (7)-Code of  Civil\nProcedure. (Act V of 1908), s. 35.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nSub-section  (7)  Of s. ii of the Industrial  Disputes\tAct,\n1947, as inserted by Act 48 of 1950, provides: \" Subject  to\nthe rules made under this Act, the costs of, and  incidental\nto,  any  proceeding  before  a Tribunal  shall\t be  in\t the\ndiscretion  of\tthat Tribunal, and the Tribunal\t shall\thave\nfull  power to determine by and to whom and to\twhat  extent\nand subject to what conditions, if any, such,\n\t\t\t    221\ncosts  are to be paid and to give all  necessary  directions\nfor   the  purposes  aforesaid,\t and  such  costs  may,\t  on\napplication made to it by the person entitled, be  recovered\nas  arrears  of land revenue or as a public  demand  by\t the\nappropriate Government. t.\nDuring the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial\nTribunal  for  the  adjudication of a  dispute\tbetween\t the\nappellant Bank and its workman, an application\twas made  by\none  of the' representatives of the, workmen  praying  inter\nalia that the appellant should be ordered to pay  travelling\nand  halting   allowances  for the  representatives  of\t the\nvarious\t Unions coming from different, stations\t other\tthan\n'Delhi\tto attend the hearing before the Tribunal at  Delhi,\non the ground that the appellant had branches all over India\nand  that  there 'Were several Unions of. its  employees  at\nthose  branches\t who  were,  involved  in  the\tdispute\t  in\nquestion.   The Tribunal while conceding that there  was  no\nprovision  of law in support of the claim, made by the\tres-\npondents nevertheless made the order relying on the  general\npractice of the Industrial.  Courts.  The appellant appealed\nby  special  leave and contended that the order\t was  wholly\nwithout\t  jurisdiction\tand  was  also\tunjust,\t while\t the\nrespondents supported the order relying on s. II (7) Of\t the\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947:\nHeld,\tthat   the  order  of  the  Tribunal   was   without\njurisdiction and could not be- supported either on the basis\nof  the\t general practice of the Industrial Courts  or\twith\nreference to the provisions of s. II (7) Of the Act, because\n(1)  there  was\t no uniform or consistent  practice  in\t the\nmatter\tand  even  if there was any such  practice,  it\t was\nneither warranted by law nor by the principles of reason and\njustice\t ; (2) on a proper construction' of the\t sub-section\nthere was no power in the Tribunal to direct the payment  of\nthe  costs  of\ta  party in  advance  by  the  other  party,\nirrespective of the final result of the proceeding.\nThe  discretion which is given to a Tribunal under s.  II(7)\nof  the Act is a judicial discretion and must be  exercised.\naccording to the rules of reason and justice, not by chance.\nor  caprice  or\t private opinion or some  fanciful  idea  of\nbenevolence or sympathy.\njeevan\tTextile Mills, Hyderabad (Deccan) v. Their  Workmen,<\/a>\n(1956) I L.L.J. 423- approved.\nCertain Banking Companies v. Their Workmen,<\/a> (1952) 2 L.L.J.\n54, in so far as it decided that the :Tribunal had power and\njurisdiction under s. I 1(7) of the Act to direct the  Banks\nto meet the expenses of the workmen in a pending proceeding,\ndisapproved\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil’ Appeal\tNo.  134  of
\n1955.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal by -special leave from the order dated April 17,1954,
\nof,  Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, made on  an
\napplication filed, on April 17, 1954.\n<\/p>\n
222<\/span><\/p>\n
Ram Lal Anand and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
\n Y. Kumar, for respondent No. 13.\n<\/p>\n
1956.  December 20.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nS.   K.\t DAS  J.-The  Punjab  National:\t Bank  Ltd.  is\t the
\nappellant before us.  Shorn of all details not necessary for
\nour  purpose,  the facts are these.  By its  Order  No.\t LR-
\n100(98)\t dated September 2, 1953, the Government, of  India,
\nMinistry  of Labour, appointed Shri Ram\t Kanwar,  respondent
\nNo. 1, as the Industrial Tribunal for the adjudication of  a
\ndispute\t which\thad  arisen between the\t appellant  and\t its
\nworkmen in respect–of the following matter:
\n“Absorption of Bharat Bank employees in the Punjab  National
\nBank Ltd., and their service conditions.”
\nOn  April  17, 1954, in the course  of\tcertain\t preliminary
\nproceedings  before  respondent No. 1, -an  application\t was
\nmade  on  behalf  of  the All  India  Punjab  National\tBank
\nEmployees’ Federation, in which it was stated that a  number
\nof  other Unions Were involved in the dispute  in  question,
\nbecause the appellant had branches all over India and  there
\nwere several Unions of its employees at those branches.\t  It
\nwas  further  stated in the application that some  of  those
\nUnions\thad submitted their statements when the\t dispute  in
\nquestion  was referred to the Industrial Tribunal ,  Bombay,
\nwith  Shri  Panchapagesa  Shastri as  its  sole\t member\t and
\nChairman;  that Tribunal did not, however, function as\tShri
\nPanchapagesa  Shastri was appointed a member of\t the  Labour
\nApllate\t Tribunal  of India.  Two substantial  prayers\twere
\nmade in the application of April 17, 1954: one was that\t due
\npublicity of the adjudication proceedings should be given by
\nissuing\t notices to all those Unions to participate  in\t the
\nproceedings, and the second prayer was that an order  should
\nbe  made  directing  the appellant  to\tpay  travelling\t and
\nhalting\t allowances  to the representatives of\tthe  various
\nUnions\t so   as  to  enable  the  latter  to\tsend   their
\nrepresentatives to Delhi, the place where the.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    223<\/span><\/p>\n
adjudication  proceedings were pending.\t A list of  fourteen
\nUnions\t and   organisations  was  given  along\t  with\t the
\napplication,  with the number of representatives which\teach
\nUnion or Organisation wished, send.\n<\/p>\n
In the present appeal we are concerned only with the  second
\nprayer\tmade  in the aforesaid application,, and  the  order
\nwhich  respondent  No. I made with regard to  that,  prayer,
\nbeing the order impugned before us, was in these terms:
\n”  The\tmanagement  objects to the grant of  any  T.  A.  or
\nhalting allowance to the representatives of the Unions.\t  It
\nis,  no doubt, correct that there is no pro-, vision of\t law
\non  this  point in favour of the  representatives,  but\t the
\ngeneral practice of various Tribunals has all along been  to
\nallow  reasonable  T.  A.  and\thalting\t allowance  to\t the
\nrepresentatives\t of the Unions, specially in  Banks’  cases.
\nIt  is, therefore, ordered that the representatives  of\t the
\nUnions, who put in appearance in the Tribunal from  stations
\noutside\t Delhi,\t shall be paid 2 1\/2  second  class  railway
\nfares  to and from Delhi, plus Rs. 10\/- per day\t as  halting
\nallowance, by the management of the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
The Bank is also requested to direct its respective branches
\nto  pay travelling and halting allowances in advance to\t the
\nemployees who intend to come to Court. as representatives.”
\nIt  may be stated here that out of the fourteen\t Unions\t and
\norganisations which wanted to send their representatives  to
\ntake  part in the adjudication proceedings, two\t have  their
\noffices in Delhi.  Respondent No. 1 directed the payment  of
\ntravelling and halting allowances to the representatives  of
\nthe remaining twelve Unions and organisations and fixed\t the
\nnumber\tof  representatives  to be  sent by  each  Union  or
\norganisation.\n<\/p>\n
The  plea  of  the appellant was that the  order  passed  by
\nrespondent  No.\t I was wholly without jurisdiction  and\t was
\nalso unjust, involving as it did an expenditure of not\tless
\nthan Rs. 2,500\/- for each day of hearing in
\n224<\/span>
\nthe ‘Courts of the, proceedings before respondent No. 1.  On
\nthat plea the appellant moved the Punjab High Court for\t the
\nissue of ‘a writ of certiorari – or such other writ as might
\nbe  appropriate\t for the purpose of quashing  the  order  of
\nrespondent No. 1. The Punjab High Court, however,  dismissed
\nthe  petition of the appellant, in limine on May  14,  1954.
\nThe  appellant’\t then asked for and obtained  special  leave
\nfrom this Court on October 18, 1954.\n<\/p>\n
 The   question\t for  decision is a  very  short  one.\t The
\nrespondents, appearing before us have sought to support\t the
\nimpugned  order on the strength of the provisions of  sub-a.
\n(7)  of s. 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947  (XIV  of
\n1947),\thereinafter referred to as the Act That\t sub-section
\nwhich  was  added  by Act 48 of 1950  and,  which  we  shall
\npresently  read, lays down, inter alia, that the  costs\t of,
\nand incidental to, any proceeding before a Tribunal shall be
\nin  the discretion of that Tribunal, and the Tribunal  shall
\nhave  full  power to determine by and to whom  and  to\twhat
\nextent\tand subject to what -conditions, if any, such  costs
\nare to be paid and to give all necessary directions for\t the
\npurposes aforesaid.  The question is whether respondent\t No.
\nI  had\tpower, in the exercise of his discretion  under\t the
\nprovisions of sub-s. (7) of s. 11, to direct the payment  of
\ncosts in advance by one of the parties to the dispute to the
\nother parties in a pending proceeding, irrespective ‘of\t the
\nfinal result of that proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
In  our\t opinion, the question admits of  only\tone  answer.
\nSub-section (3) of s. 11 enumerates certain powers vested in
\na  Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure,  and\tsays
\nthat  every  Board, Court and Tribunal under the  Act  shall
\nhave  those powers; the last enumerated power is in  general
\nterms,\tbeing  respect\tof  such other\tmatters\t as  may  be
\nprescribed.   No  rules made under the Act  bearing  on\t the
\nquestion of costs have been brought to our notice; there re,
\nall  that can be said, with regard to the effect  of  sub-s.
\n(3)  of s. II, is that except the  enumerated powers,  other
\npowers\tvested\tin a Civil Court under the Code,  of,  Civil
\nProcedure have not been given to the Board,
\n\t\t\t    225<\/span>
\nCourt or Tribunal under the Act.  The Act however,  contains
\na separate provision in the matter of costs and that is sub-
\ns. (7) of s. 11.  That sub-section reads (we are quoting  it
\nas  it stood at the relevant time prior to the amendment  of
\n1956):\n<\/p>\n
”  Subject to the rules made under this Act, the  costs\t of,
\nand incidental to, any proceeding before a Tribunal shall be
\nin  the discretion of that Tribunal, and the Tribunal  shall
\nhave  full  power to determine by and to whom  and  to\twhat
\nextent\tand subject to what conditions, if any,\t such  costs
\nare to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the
\npurposes aforesaid, and such costs may, on application\tmade
\nto  it\tby the person entitled, be recovered as\t arrears  of
\nland  revenue  or  as a public\tdemand\tby  the\t appropriate
\nGovernment.”\n<\/p>\n
A  comparison of the sub-section with s. 35 of the  Code  of
\nCivil  Procedure  shows\t that the sub-section  is  in  terms
\nsimilar\t to  those of s. 35 of the Code of  Civil  Procedure
\nexcept\tfor the’ concluding portion of the subsection  which
\nrelates\t to  the  recovery  of costs  as  arrears  of-\tland
\nrevenue.   There is also another difference in that  sub-ss.
\n(2)  and (3) of s. 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure do\t not
\nfind  place  in\t the Act.  On a plain reading  of  the\tsub-
\nsection,  it is manifest that (1) the expression ” costs  of
\nany  proceeding\t ” means costs of the entire  proceeding  as
\ndetermined  on\tits conclusion and not costs  in  a  pending
\nproceeding,  nor costs to be incurred in future by a  party;
\nand (2) the expression ” costs” incidental to any proceeding
\n” similarly means costs of interlocutory applications  etc.-
\nsuch   costs  as  have\tbeen  determined  thereon,  at\t the
\nconclusion  of the hearing.  Neither of the two\t expressions
\nhas  any  reference, to costs payable in advance or  to\t be-
\nincurred  in  future by a party; far less do they  refer  to
\nhalting and travelling allowances to be incurred by a  party
\nwhile attending the Court on his own behalf.  Respondent No.
\n1 correctly appreciated the legal position, and said I\tthat
\nthere  was no provision of law in support of the claim\tmade
\nby
\n29<\/span>
\n226<\/span>
\nthe  respondents.   He\trelied,\t however,  on  the   general
\npractice of Industrial Courts, particularly in Banks’ cases.
\nWe  doubt  it  there  was any  such  general  or  consistent
\npractice;  nor\tdo we think that such practice, if  any,  is
\nlegally justified.  But we shall advert to this matter\twhen
\nconsidering such of the decisions of Industrial Tribunals as
\nhave been placed before us.\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t counsel  for  the respondents has  -not  relied  on
\npractice,  but\ton  the terms of  the  subsection.   He\t has
\nsubmitted that the concluding portion of, the sub-;  section
\nwhich  states that ” such costs may, on application made  to
\nit  by the person entitled, be recovered as arrears of\tland
\nrevenue or as a public demand by the appropriate  Government
\n”  shows that costs may be granted in advance in  a  pending
\nproceeding.   His, argument -has proceeded on  these  lines:
\nfirstly,  he  has  submitted  that  an\tIndustrial  Tribunal
\nbecomes\t functus officio with the submission of the  award.;
\nsecond the concluding portion of the. sub-section shows that
\nan  application\t for recovery of costs can be made to  it  ”
\nthat is, the Tribunal); therefore, the , application must be
\nmade before the Tribunal becomes functus officio; that\tis,.
\nat  a stage when the proceedings is still pending.   In\t our
\nopinion, this argument is wholly fallacious and proceeds  on
\na  misreading of the sub-section.  The expression ” it ”  in
\nthe  concluding\t portion of the sub-section  refers  to\t the
\nappropriate,  Government. and not to the Tribunal; thus\t the
\nvery basis of the argument disappears and it is\t unnecessary
\nto consider if the Tribunal becomes functus Officio with the
\nsubmission  of its award-& proposition regarding  which\t we-
\nexpress no opinion.\n<\/p>\n
It is not disputed that sub-s. (7) of s. 11 of the Act gives
\na  discretion  to  the Tribunal, and it has  full  power  to
\ndetermine by and, to whom and to what extent and subject  to
\nwhat  conditions, if any, the costs are to be paid.   It  is
\nclear, however, that the discretion is a jusicial discretion
\nand must be exercised according to the rules. of reason\t and
\njustice–not by chance or caprice or private opinion or some
\nfanciful
\n\t\t\t    227<\/span>
\nidea  of  benevolence  or sympathy.  It is  a,\tnegation  of
\njustice and reason to direct the appellant to pay in advance
\nthe  costs  of\tthe respondents irrespective  of  the  final
\nresult\tof the proceeding.  The general rule is\t that  costs
\nfollow\tthe  event  unless  the\t Court,\t for  good  reasons,
\notherwise orders.  Respondent No. I gave no reasons for\t his
\norder  except that of practice—a practice, assuming  there
\nbe  any such practice, which is neither legal nor just.\t  It
\nmay  be\t conceded  that the jurisdiction  of  an  Industrial
\nTribunal  is  not  invoked  for\t the  enforcement  of\tmere
\ncontractual  rights  and liabilities of the parties  to\t the
\ndispute\t referred  to  the Tribunal  for  adjudication;\t its
\njurisdiction in the matter of adjudication of an  industrial
\ndispute is wider and more flexible.  All the same, it is not
\nan  arbitrary jurisdiction; it may be readily conceded\tthat
\nan  employee  is  as  much entitled to a  fair\tdeal  as  an
\nemployer  and  he must be protected from  victimisation\t and
\nunfair labour practice, but I social justice’ does not\tmean
\nthat   reason  and  fairness  must  always  ‘yield  to\t the
\nconvenience  of a party-convenience of the employee  at\t the
\ncost  of  the  employer as in  this  cases  an\tadjudication
\nproceeding.   Such one-sided or partial view is really\tnext
\nof  kin to caprice or humour.  Lord Halsbury L. C.  put\t the
\nmatter\tin  characteristically forceful\t language  when,  he
\nsaid:  “……\t‘discretion’  means when  it  is  said\tthat
\nsomething  is  to  be  done within  the\t discretion  of\t the
\nauthorities  that ,something is to be done according to\t the
\nrules  of  reason  and justice,\t not  according\t to  private
\nopinion: Rooke’s Case (1); according to law, and not humour.
\nIt  is to be, not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but  legal
\nand regular.” (Susannah Sharp v. Wakefield) (2).
\nThere  are special cases where in a pending proceeding\tsome
\ncosts  may have to be borne by a party to a litigation;\t for
\nexample,  sub-r.  (4)  of r. 4 of 0. XXXII,  Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure, says that where there is no other person fit\t and
\nwilling\t to  act as guardian of a minor for  the  suit,\t the
\nCourt  may appoint any of its officers to be such  guardian,
\nand may. direct that the\n<\/p>\n
(t) 5 Rep. 100,a.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1891] A.C. 173. 179.\n<\/p>\n
228<\/span><\/p>\n
costs  to be incurred by such officer in the performance  of
\nhis  duties  as such guardian shall be borne either  by\t the
\nparties\t or by any one or more of the parties to the  -suit.
\nSection\t 35  of\t the  Code  is\tnot  only  subject  to\tsuch
\nconditions and limitations as may be prescribed, but is also
\nsubject\t to the provisions of any law for the time being  in
\nforce.\t Under\tthe  Matrimonial  Causes  Rules,  1950,\t the
\npractice  in  English Courts is that after  the\t registrar’s
\ncertificate  for trial has been granted, or, with leave,  at
\nan  earlier stage of ‘the cause, a wife who is a  petitioner
\nand has asked for costs or who has filed an answer may apply
\nfor  security for her costs of the cause up to the  hearing,
\nand of and incidental to the hearing (see Halsbury’s Laws of
\nEngland, 3rd Ed., Vol. 12, para. 765 at p. 358).  When\tsuch
\nsecurity  is ordered, unless the husband elects to  pay\t the
\namount\tinto  the registry and gives notice  to\t the  wife’s
\nsolicitor, a bond is required from him.\t Such cases stand on
\na special footing and are governed by special statutory pro-
\nvisions.   They have no application in the present case\t and
\nafford no justification for the order impugned before us.
\nWe  now\t turn  to the question of  practice  in\t the  Labour
\nCourts.\t The earliest decision which has been brought to our
\nnotice is Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Their Workmen<\/a>(1).\tThat
\nwas a case in which one of the demands for adjudication\t was
\nthe demand for travelling and other expenses of the  workers
\nrepresentatives, when such representatives were required  to\n<\/p>\n
-go  out at the instance, of any duly constituted  authority
\nor  Court  in  respect of any  industrial  matter.   It\t was
\nobserved: ” The demand according to the company amounted  to
\nfinancing the administration of the Union and was  therefore
\nobjectionable even on psychological grounds.” The:  Tribunal
\ndirected  that\tthe;  travelling and other  expenses  to  be
\nincurred, in connection with the Union work must be paid out
\nof  the Union funds and the employer–could not be  required
\nto contribute the sum.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1951] 2 L.L.J. 557.\n<\/p>\n
229<\/span><\/p>\n
In  the well-known case, Certain Banking Companies V.  Their
\nWorkmen<\/a>\t (1),  the  question  of  facilities  for  effective
\nrepresentation of their cases on behalf of the employees was
\nraised\tand considered at -some length.\t The decision  given
\nwas that the Tribunal had power and jurisdiction, under sub-
\ns. (7) of s. 11 of the Act, to direct the Banks to meet\t the
\nreasonable  expenses of the workmen in a pending  proceeding
\nin  order  to  ensure a fair  and  effective  hearing.\t The
\ngrounds on which the decision was based were these: (1)\t the
\nBanks  were well organised and their managements we’re\t-in.
\npossess-ion  of resources; (2) the adjudication by a  Iabour
\nCourt  or Industrial Tribunal was a compulsory\tadjudication
\nin the interests of the public, and as disputes relating  to
\nBanking\t companies,  with establishments, in more  than\t one
\nState,\twere  referred\tto  the\t Tribunal  by  the   Central
\nGovernment,  the circumstance that various workmen  residing
\nin   various   States  were  compelled\tto  submit   to\t  an
\nadjudication  by  a.  Central  Tribunal\t was  sufficient  to
\njustify\t an  order for the payment of their  travelling\t and
\nhalting\t allowances;  (3) there was nothing in the  Act.  to
\npreclude  the  exercise, of such power on the  part  of\t the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal  as  was  required\t to  carry  on\t the
\nfundamental object of ensuring a proper hearing for the two,
\nparties\t to the dispute, and the weaker party,, namely,\t the
\ncomparatively  unorganised, numerous and  scattered  workmen
\nemployed in different branches, needed assistance to present
\ntheir  case  ; (4) prior to the addition of, sub-s.  (7)  of
\ns.11  in  1950, various Industrial Tribunals  used  to\tpass
\nsimilar orders and it was in recognition of the necessity of
\nsuch orders that the statutory provision in the\t sub-section
\nwas  made;  and\t (5)  the  principles  of  natural  justice.
\nrequired  that\ta real opportunity should be  given  to\t the
\nworkmen to. present their case by asking the employer to pay
\nfor  their  expenses.\tIn  our\t opinion,  not\tone  of\t the
\naforesaid grounds is really sustainable, either in law or on
\nthe  principle of justice, equity and good conscience.,\t The
\ncircumstance  that  the Banks are well organised  and  their
\nmanagements are in possession of
\n(1)  [1952] 2 L.L.J. 54.\n<\/p>\n
230<\/span><\/p>\n
resources  cannot be a ground for making -them pay  for\t the
\nexpenses of the other party; if that is the principle to  be
\napplied, then in every case the richer party must be made to
\npay  the expenses of- the weaker party, irrespective of\t the
\nultimate result of the dispute ; even in a dispute raised by
\nthe workmen, which may be ultimately found to be -devoid  of
\nall merit, the employer must be made to finance the workmen.
\nSuch  a\t principle  will  merely  encourage  frivolous\t and
\nunsubstantial  disputes and will run counter to\t the  object
\nand purposes of the Act, namely; the promotion of industrial
\npeace\t  in  the  interests  of the  general  public.\t The
\nsecond\t    circumstance  that the adjudication\t is  a\tcom-
\npulsory\t adjudication applies equally to both parties.If  it
\nis  a  compulsory  -adjudication for the  employees,  it  is
\nequally\t so 1 or the employer and we can see no\t reason\t why
\nthat circumstance should involve the imposition of a penalty
\non  one of the parties to the dispute and not on the  other.
\nWe,  have already pointed out that on a proper\tconstruction
\nof  the\t sub-section there is no power in  the\tTribunal  to
\ndirect the Repayment of the costs of a party,, in advance by
\nthe  other party, irrespective of the final result,  of\t the
\nproceeding,  and  the view expressed by\t the  Bank  Disputes
\nTribunal as to the construction of the relevant\t sub-section
\nis manifestly erroneous; nor are we satisfied, that prior to
\nthe addition of the sub-section, there was any consistent or
\nuniform\t practice  in  the  matter, so as  to  lead  to\t the
\ninference  that\t the  provisions  of  the  sub-section\tgave
\nstatutory recognition to; the practice.’ It is difficult  to
\nunderstand  how\t the principles of natural  justice  can  be
\ninvoked\t in aid of an order which penalises one party  to  a
\ndispute by making it pay for the costs of the other party in
\nadvance,  irrespective of the result of the  proceding.\t  We
\ncan  only say that such an order is neither natural nor\t has
\nany element of justice in it.\n<\/p>\n
In   a\t later\tdecision,   Asssociated\t  Cement   Companies
\nLtd.,Dwarka Cement  Works,  Dwarka V. Workmen Employed<\/a> under
\nit(1),it   Was\t observed:  ”\tIt,therefore,\tthe   Unions
\nrepresentatives thought it proper -to attend on the
\n(1)  [l953] I.C.R. BOM. 292 at 307.-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    231<\/span><\/p>\n
various\t dates\tbefore, the Tribunal, it is  the  Union\t who
\nshould\tbear the costs.” In a still later  decision,  Jeevan
\nTextile\t Mills, Hyderabad (Deccan) v. Their Workmen<\/a>(1),\t the
\nquestion  was again considered at some length.\tWith  regard
\nto sub-s. (7) of s. II it was observed: ” Although s. 11 (7)
\nis  worded  in a very wide way and the power  to  order\t the
\npayment of costs granted under it to industrial tribunals is
\nmade comprehensive and is  not even fettered by a  provision
\nlike s. 35 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring the
\ntribunal  to state its reasons if costs are not\t ordered  to
\nfollow the event, orders for costs can only be made, even by
\nindustrial tribunals, on well-recognised principles and\t not
\non  any\t abstract  ideas as to what,  irrespective  of\tsuch
\nprinciples,  should  be\t considered  as\t desirable  in\t any
\nparticular  case: vide United Commercial Bank Case(2)”.\t  We
\nare in agreement with the view expressed above.
\nIt  would appear from what we have stated above\t that  there
\nwas no uniform or consistent practice in the matter, and  we
\nare further of the view that if there was any such practice,
\nit  was\t neither warranted by law nor by the  principles  of
\nreason and justice.  In Ex parte Snow In re Sherwell(3),  an
\napplication  was made to review a taxation of costs and\t the
\nappellant,  who\t was  a\t Barrister-at-law  and\tresided\t  at
\nLiverpool, claimed his travelling expenses from Liverpool to
\nLondon\tand  back,  on the ground that by  arguing  his\t own
\nappeal he had saved the expense of engaging counsel to which
\nhe  would  have been entitled.\tThe claim was  dismissed  as
\n“preposterous and unheard of
\nAs  we\tbegan, so we -end: there is only one answer  to\t the
\nquestion  and  that answer is that respondent No. I  had  no
\npower, in the exercise of his discretion under sub-s. (7) of
\nsection II of the Act, to direct the appellant in this -case
\nto  pay\t the  travelling  and  halting\tallowances  of\t the
\nrepresentatives\t of the Unions in a pending  proceeding\t and
\nirrespective of its final
\n(1)  [1956] 1 L.L.J. 423.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1952],2 L.L. J. 1.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1879] Weekly NoteS 22.\n<\/p>\n
232<\/span><\/p>\n
result.\t For the reasons given.\t this appeal is allowed with
\ncosts,\tand  the  costs\t must  be  paid\t by  the  contesting
\nrespondents.   The order of respondent No. 1, so far  as  it
\nrelates to the payment in a pending proceeding of travelling
\nand halting allowances to the representatives of the various
\nUnions, must and is hereby, set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    233<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial … on 20 December, 1956 Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 276, 1957 SCR 220 Author: S Das Bench: Das, S.K. PETITIONER: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Ltd. Vs. RESPONDENT: SRI RAM KANWAR, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,DELHI. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/12\/1956 BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. BHAGWATI, […]<\/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-127845","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPunjab National Bank Ltd vs Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial ... on 20 December, 1956 - 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\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial ... on 20 December, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956\" \/>\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=\"1956-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-28T12:47:17+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial … on 20 December, 1956\",\"datePublished\":\"1956-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-28T12:47:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956\"},\"wordCount\":3641,\"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\\\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956\",\"name\":\"Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial ... on 20 December, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1956-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-28T12:47:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial … on 20 December, 1956\"}]},{\"@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":"Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial ... on 20 December, 1956 - 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\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial ... on 20 December, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1956-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-28T12:47:17+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial … on 20 December, 1956","datePublished":"1956-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-28T12:47:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956"},"wordCount":3641,"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\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956","name":"Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial ... on 20 December, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1956-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-28T12:47:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-national-bank-ltd-vs-sri-ram-kanwar-industrial-on-20-december-1956#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Sri Ram Kanwar, Industrial … on 20 December, 1956"}]},{"@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\/127845","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=127845"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127845\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127845"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127845"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127845"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}