{"id":131306,"date":"2008-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-07-25T10:39:41","modified_gmt":"2018-07-25T05:09:41","slug":"kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Kanubhai vs Assistant on 4 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kanubhai vs Assistant on 4 September, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt<\/div>\n<pre>  \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n \n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/29169\/2007\t 5\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 29169 of 2007\n \n\n \n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\nKANUBHAI\nNANAKRAM SHARMA - Petitioner\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nASSISTANT\nLABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) &amp; 3 - Respondents\n \n\n=================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nJS BRAHMBHATT for Petitioner: \nMR AMAR D MITHANI for Respondent :\n1, \nMR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent : 2, \nNOTICE UNSERVED for\nRespondent : 3, \nMR KRUNAL D. PANDYA, LD AGP for Respondent :\n4, \n================================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 04\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard learned counsels for the<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner who is claiming  himself to be a workman has filed this<br \/>\n\tpetition also on behalf of the other workmen listed at Annexure-A,<br \/>\n\thas assailed the order dated 17\/2\/2004 passed by the Assistant<br \/>\n\tLabour Commissioner (Central), Baroda, rejecting the application of<br \/>\n\tthe applicant dated 6\/2\/2004 raising demand for reinstatement in<br \/>\n\tservice on the ground that way back on 24\/8\/1987 such a demand was<br \/>\n\trejected on the ground that the appropriate government in respect of<br \/>\n\tthe disputed raised was the State Government and consequently as<br \/>\n\tthere was no employer-employee relationship between Gujarat Refinery<br \/>\n\tand the workmen in dispute, the dispute was not maintainable against<br \/>\n\tGujarat Refinery under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, and<br \/>\n\ttherefore the question of reference thereof did not arise.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe facts in brief deserves to be stated as under.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe petitioners who were employees of Chetna Lodging &amp;<br \/>\nBoarding, a unit rendering service of lodging &amp; boarding in the<br \/>\npremises of Gujarat Refinery raised industrial dispute with regard to<br \/>\ntheir service conditions and regularization. They preferred Special<br \/>\nCivil Application No. 2745 of 1985 with Special Civil Application No.<br \/>\n2746 and 2747 of 1985, wherein the Division Bench of this Court on<br \/>\n22\/1\/1986 passed an order leaving liberty to the petitioners to raise<br \/>\nan industrial dispute as under.\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00fdS (1) The petitioners should raise an industrial dispute and make<br \/>\nan application to the competent authority in the Central Government<br \/>\nfor making reference to the Industrial Tribunal under section<br \/>\n10(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such a dispute to be raised<br \/>\nand necessary application  to be made within two weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n<p> (2) The Competent Authority in the Central Government after going<br \/>\nthrough the prescribed procedure including hearing to the parties,<br \/>\nshall decide for making reference to the Industrial Tribunal<br \/>\nconcerned, if the conciliation efforts fail to produce satisfactory<br \/>\nresult. The Competent Authority to decide this question within six<br \/>\nweeks from the submission of the benefit report by the contractor as<br \/>\ndirected in (1) above. \u00fdS<\/p>\n<p>\tAs per the say of the petitioner the concerned union in their behalf<br \/>\n\tdid raise a dispute which came to be rejected by an order dated<br \/>\n\t24\/8\/1987. This order of rejection had not been communicated to the<br \/>\n\tworkmen concerned and they came to know about this order only in the<br \/>\n\tyear 2004 and therefore, approached the concerned competent<br \/>\n\tauthority once again by preferring application dated 6\/2\/2004 which<br \/>\n\tcame to be rejected by the said authority vide order dated 17\/2\/2004<br \/>\n\twhich is impugned in the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis Court (Coram: H.K. Rathod, J) on 1-4-2008 issued notice which<br \/>\n\twas made returnable on 30\/4\/2008. In response to the notice learned<br \/>\n\tcounsels for the respective parties appeared and contested the<br \/>\n\tmatter.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tBrahmbhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) inter alia<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the order impugned is not sustainable as the Division<br \/>\n\tBench of this Court while disposing of the earlier set of petitions<br \/>\n\tvide its order dated 22\/1\/1986 granted unequivocal liberty to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners to approach the Central Government, i.e. the Appropriate<br \/>\n\tGovernment for referring their dispute to the Industrial Tribunal<br \/>\n\tunder Section 10(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in light<br \/>\n\tof the said liberty, the order impugned can not be said to be<br \/>\n\tsustainable as the &#8216;appropriate Government&#8217; so far as the dispute<br \/>\n\twas concerned was the Central Government and not the State. The<br \/>\n\tearlier order dated 24\/8\/1987 where under the request for referring<br \/>\n\tthe dispute was rejected, was untenable in eye of law and therefore,<br \/>\n\tthe second order dated 17\/2\/2004 which is merely a repetition of the<br \/>\n\tearlier order dated 24\/8\/1987 is also required to be quashed and set<br \/>\n\taside.  Shri. Brahmbhatt further submitted that the contention taken<br \/>\n\tby the respondent no.2 for resisting this petition on account of<br \/>\n\tdelay &amp; laches also can not militate against the prayers made in<br \/>\n\tthis petition, as the order impugned nowhere speaks about the delay<br \/>\n\t&amp; laches and the rejection of the demand for raising dispute was<br \/>\n\tmainly on account of the authority being not competent authority as<br \/>\n\tenvisaged.  In other words the authority being not the appropriate<br \/>\n\tgovernment and as there was no relationship between the Refinery and<br \/>\n\tthe workmen and therefore, this was the only order which can not be<br \/>\n\tsaid to be sustainable in eye of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBrahmbhatt has submitted that the dispute is genuine and since 1986<br \/>\n\tthe day when they approached this Court by filing appropriate writ<br \/>\n\tpetitions and prior thereto the workmen on whose behalf industrial<br \/>\n\tdispute was sought to be raised are rendered unemployed and looking<br \/>\n\tto their plight the dispute deserves to be referred for appropriate<br \/>\n\tadjudication.  Shri Bhatt submitted that the observations made by<br \/>\n\tthe authority with regard to no relationship of employee and<br \/>\n\temployer as recorded by the authority in the impugned order would<br \/>\n\talso come in their way in case if the workmen move State Government<br \/>\n\tbeing &#8216;appropriate authority&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri<br \/>\n\tMithani, learned counsel appearing for Respondent no.1 has submitted<br \/>\n\tthat the petitioners have  sought permission to join State as party<br \/>\n\tand in fact joined the State as party as it is seen from the order<br \/>\n\tdated 1-4-2008 passed by this Court (Coram: H.K. Rahtod, J). Looking<br \/>\n\tto the prayer and the averments in the petition, it appears that<br \/>\n\teven the workmen themselves have admitted that the Central<br \/>\n\tgovernment is not the competent authority in the order impugned,<br \/>\n\ttherefore can not be said to be in any way suffering from any<br \/>\n\tillegality.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tManish Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 has<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the order impugned can not be said to be suffering<br \/>\n\tfrom any infirmity as such calling for any interference by this<br \/>\n\tCourt under Article 226 &amp; 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri<br \/>\n\tBhatt submitted that the direction containing liberty reserved by<br \/>\n\tthe Division Bench in its order dated 22\/1\/1986 can not be construed<br \/>\n\tto be a finding that the Central Government was the appropriate<br \/>\n\tauthority as envisaged under the provisions of Industrial Disputes<br \/>\n\tAct. He, in the alternative, submitted  that, assuming for the sake<br \/>\n\tof submitting that the Central Government was the appropriate<br \/>\n\tGovernment, then also, the order impugned needs no interference at<br \/>\n\tthis stage only on account of gross delay and laches on the part of<br \/>\n\tthe concerned workmen. Shri. Bhatt has extensively taken this Court<br \/>\n\tthrough the affidavit in reply where respondent has categorically<br \/>\n\tpleaded grave prejudice in case the reference is made at this<br \/>\n\tbelated stage. He relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in case<br \/>\n\tof <a href=\"\/doc\/1380920\/\">U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. v. BABU RAM,<\/a> reported in (2006)<br \/>\n\t5 SCC 433, and the observations on page 436 in support of his<br \/>\n\tsubmission that such a belated reference if made would cause<br \/>\n\ttremendous prejudice to the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tCourt need not go into the question with regard to  \u00fdSappropriate<br \/>\n\tgovernment\u00fd\u00fd at this stage. The petition deserves to be disposed of<br \/>\n\ton the question of gross delay and laches on the part of the workmen<br \/>\n\tconcerned. The question with regard to &#8216;appropriate government&#8217; and<br \/>\n\tthe observations made by the authority in the impugned order will<br \/>\n\thave to be actually granted in light of the direction issued by the<br \/>\n\tDivision Bench of this Court in the order dated 22\/1\/1986 in the<br \/>\n\tearlier group of petitions. However, as it is stated herein above,<br \/>\n\tthis Court is not inclined to examine the said question. Suffice it<br \/>\n\tto say here that the petition is to be disposed of as it is<br \/>\n\tsuffering from gross delay and laches on the part of the workmen<br \/>\n\tconcerned.  It deserves to be noted that originally the group of<br \/>\n\tpetitions was filed way back in the year 1986 and the Court also<br \/>\n\tpassed an order on 22\/1\/1986. After that order it appears from the<br \/>\n\trecord that there was reference to demand also raised and the demand<br \/>\n\twas rejected vide order dated 24\/8\/1987. Now, this order, as per the<br \/>\n\tsay of the petitioner had never been communicated to them by their<br \/>\n\trespective unions and ultimately they had to move the concerned<br \/>\n\t&#8216;appropriate government&#8217; once again in the year 2004 reiterating the<br \/>\n\torder dated 24\/8\/1987. In short what is being challenged in this<br \/>\n\tpetition is an order dated 24\/8\/1987, though that order in itself is<br \/>\n\tnot sustainable in view of the earlier order, a question arise as to<br \/>\n\twhether at such a belated stage when the petitioners  have not taken<br \/>\n\tany remedy available and permitted to pass the time till 2004, this<br \/>\n\tCourt would be justified in interfering with it especially in view<br \/>\n\tof the observations of the Apex Court in case of U.P. State Road<br \/>\n\tTransport Corpn. (supra). The answer would be positively NO. The<br \/>\n\tdelay and laches and the prayer go to squarely militate against<br \/>\n\tentertaining of the petition itself. The passage of time also goes<br \/>\n\tagainst the prayer made by the petitioner and the philosophy running<br \/>\n\tbehind the Industrial Disputes Act would also  not be in any way<br \/>\n\tpermit such an interference at such a belated stage as now there can<br \/>\n\tnot be said to be an industrial dispute existing. This Court is not<br \/>\n\tinclined to entertain the petition at this stage as the same<br \/>\n\totherwise would amount to create tremendous prejudice to the<br \/>\n\totherside. In view of this, only on account of gross delay and<br \/>\n\tlaches this petition is dismissed. Notice discharged. No cost.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAt this stage Shri Brahmbhatt for the petitioner submitted that the<br \/>\n\tobservations made by this Court may not come in the way of the<br \/>\n\tworkmen in availing the liberty, if any, before the State Government<br \/>\n\tfor raising industrial dispute, and therefore makes a request for an<br \/>\n\tappropriate observation.  Shri. Brahmbhatt&#8217;s request is misconceived<br \/>\n\tas this Court is dismissing the petition on account of gross delay<br \/>\n\tand laches in raising the dispute. The prayer made in this petition<br \/>\n\tgo to show that said prayer can not be granted when the Court is<br \/>\n\tdismissing the petition on account of gross delay and laches in<br \/>\n\traising the dispute itself. As the original order dated 24\/8\/1987<br \/>\n\thas remain unchallenged, it would not be proper for this Court to<br \/>\n\tmake any other observation so as to enable the petitioner to have<br \/>\n\tthe recourse.  Accordingly the request is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                           [ S.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>BRAHMBHATT, J ]<\/p>\n<p>\/vgn  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Kanubhai vs Assistant on 4 September, 2008 Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt SCA\/29169\/2007 5\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 29169 of 2007 ================================================= KANUBHAI NANAKRAM SHARMA &#8211; Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) &amp; 3 &#8211; Respondents ================================================= Appearance : MR JS BRAHMBHATT for Petitioner: MR [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131306","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kanubhai vs Assistant on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kanubhai vs Assistant on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-25T05:09:41+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kanubhai vs Assistant on 4 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-25T05:09:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1680,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Kanubhai vs Assistant on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-25T05:09:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kanubhai vs Assistant on 4 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Kanubhai vs Assistant on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kanubhai vs Assistant on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-25T05:09:41+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kanubhai vs Assistant on 4 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-25T05:09:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008"},"wordCount":1680,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008","name":"Kanubhai vs Assistant on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-25T05:09:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanubhai-vs-assistant-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kanubhai vs Assistant on 4 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/131306","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=131306"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131306\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}