{"id":132512,"date":"2011-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-03-29T22:48:28","modified_gmt":"2017-03-29T17:18:28","slug":"sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Sarman vs State on 29 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Sarman vs State on 29 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \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\/4060\/2011\t 12\/ 12\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. 4060 of 2011\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSARMAN\nSANGA KODIYATAR & 14 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMS\nHIRAL A PANCHAL for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 15.MR NISARG N TRIVEDI for Petitioner(s) :\n1 - 15. \nMR AL SHARMA AGP for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 29\/03\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned advocate Ms. HA Panchal on behalf of petitioner, learned AGP
\n\tMr. AL Sharma appearing for respondent State of Gujarat, District
\n\tCollector, Porbandar.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate Ms. Panchal submitted that conciliation proceeding is
\n\tpending before Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Porbandar in
\n\trespect to industrial dispute raised by Union to make all workmen
\n\tpermanent by respondent. Today on 29\/3\/2011 at about 3.30 pm,
\n\tconciliation proceeding is taken up for hearing by Assistant
\n\tCommissioner of Labour, Porbandar. He is necessary party to present
\n\tpetition, therefore, permission may be given to join Assistant
\n\tCommissioner of Labour, Porbandar having office at Jilla Seva Sadan\n<\/p>\n
\t– 1, Ranibaug Road, near District Homeguard Office, Porbandar.
\n\tAccordingly, permission is granted.  The Assistant Commissioner of
\n\tLabour is join as party respondent no. 2.  Let cause title of
\n\tpresent petition is to be amended.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tservice details of each petitioner is given by petitioner in
\n\tAnnexure A page 12 as well as particulars given in petition are as
\n\tunder:\n<\/p>\n
“The
\n\tpetitioners are working with the respondent since 1996 – 2007
\n\trespectively on the different posts i.e. Drivers, Clerks, Computer
\n\tOperations, Peons, Xerox Operator as daily wagers, and also getting
\n\tthe salary on daily wages.\n<\/p>\n
 21.2.2011\tThe
\n\tpetitioners have sent demand notice on dated 21\/2\/2011 for getting
\n\tthe benefits of Regularization on permanent vacant post.\n<\/p>\n
 3.3.2011\t\tAfter
\n\treceived the said Demand Notice, the respondent has not been allowed
\n\tthe petitioners to resume their duties.\n<\/p>\n
During
\n\tthe said period, the petitioners have already approached to the
\n\tconciliation officer, and the industrial dispute has been raised by
\n\tthe petitioners.  The next date of hearing is 29\/3\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpetitioners having authentic news about terminating of their service
\n\ton the next date of hearing i.e. 29\/3\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,
\n\tthe petitioners are constrained to file this petition under Article
\n\t226 of the Constitution of India, for restraining the respondent
\n\tfrom terminating the service of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
Hence,
\n\tthis petition.”\n<\/p>\n
“Name
\n\tof the Petitioners\t Date of joining\tPost<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
Sarman
\n\t\t\tSanga Kodiyatar<\/p>\n
16.04.1999<\/p>\n
Driver<\/p>\n
2.<\/p>\n
Kishor
\n\t\t\tMerkhi Haran<\/p>\n
20.08.2002<\/p>\n
Driver<\/p>\n
3.<\/p>\n
Bachubhai
\n\t\t\tA. Joshi<\/p>\n
10.03.2004<\/p>\n
Driver<\/p>\n
4.<\/p>\n
Rajesh
\n\t\t\tBhikhandas Kubawat<\/p>\n
01.07.2000<\/p>\n
Driver<\/p>\n
5.<\/p>\n
Rajalben
\n\t\t\tYashwantrai Vyas<\/p>\n
01.01.2003<\/p>\n
Clerk<\/p>\n
6.<\/p>\n
Naimesh
\n\t\t\tYashwantrai Vyas<\/p>\n
10.04.2002<\/p>\n
Clerk<\/p>\n
7.<\/p>\n
Vipul
\n\t\t\tHareshbhai Purohit<\/p>\n
21.07.2005<\/p>\n
Clerk<\/p>\n
8.<\/p>\n
Nilesh
\n\t\t\tRambhai Balas<\/p>\n
01.09.2000<\/p>\n
Comp.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tOpera.\n<\/p>\n
9.<\/p>\n
Shailesh
\n\t\t\tRambhai Balas<\/p>\n
28.11.2002<\/p>\n
Comp.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tOpera.\n<\/p>\n
10.<\/p>\n
Kamlesh
\n\t\t\tMohanlal Modha<\/p>\n
01.12.2006<\/p>\n
Comp.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tOpera<\/p>\n
11.<\/p>\n
Hitesh
\n\t\t\tNaranbhai Gohel<\/p>\n
09.03.2004<\/p>\n
Comp.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tOpera.\n<\/p>\n
12.<\/p>\n
Razak
\n\t\t\tKarim Sherwani<\/p>\n
06.01.1998<\/p>\n
Driver<\/p>\n
13.<\/p>\n
Kishor
\n\t\t\tMukundrai Pandya<\/p>\n
17.02.1998<\/p>\n
Xerox
\n\t\t\tOpt.\n<\/p>\n
14.<\/p>\n
Mayur
\n\t\t\tMukundrai Pandya<\/p>\n
01.01.1996<\/p>\n
Peon<\/p>\n
15.<\/p>\n
Dahyabhai
\n\t\t\tHamir Sadiya<\/p>\n
21.09.2007<\/p>\n
Peon<\/p>\n
The
\n\tindustrial dispute raised by Amar Gujarat Shramjivi Sangh giving
\n\tdetailed notice to
\n\tDistrict Collector, Porbandar on 21\/2\/2011. The industrial dispute
\n\traised by Union in favour of present petitioner to confirm or to
\n\tmake permanent each petitioner after completion of 240 days
\n\tcontinuous service. In response to aforesaid demand notice,
\n\tAssistant Commissioner of Labour, Porbandar has initiated
\n\tconciliation proceeding and notice has been served to District
\n\tCollector, Porbandar, District Porbandar on 7\/3\/2011 and 16\/3\/2011.
\n\tTherefore, dispute is pending for permanency raised by Union in
\n\tfavour of present petitioner.  Meanwhile, if any order of
\n\ttermination is to be passed then it amounts to breach of section
\n\t33(1)(a) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  In such circumstances,
\n\tprior permission is necessary so long conciliation is pending in
\n\trespect to industrial dispute for better condition of service of
\n\tpetitioner means permanency.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tview has been taken by Apex Court in case of  The Bhavnagar
\n\tMunicipality Vs. Alibhai Karimbhai and Ors reported in AIR 1977 SC
\n\t1229.  The relevant para 12 to 15 are quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“12.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore we proceed further we should direct our attention\tto
\n\tthe\tsubject matter of the\tindustrial  dispute  pending before the
\n\tTribunal. It is sufficient to take note of\tthe\tprincipal  item\tof
\n\tthe dispute, namely, the demand  of the respondents for conversion
\n\tof the temporary status of  their employment  into permanent. To
\n\trecapitulate briefly\t the appellant  employed  daily rated workers
\n\tto do the  work  of boring\tand hand pumps in its Water Works
\n\tSection. These workers have  been in employment for over  a
\n\tyear.\tThey claimed\t permanency in their employment on their putting
\n\tin more than 90 days’ service.  They  also demanded two  pairs of
\n\tuniform every year, cycle allowance at the rate  of\tRs. 10\/- per
\n\tmonth, Provident Fund benefit and National Holidays and other
\n\tholidays allowed to the other workers. While\tthis particular dispute
\n\t was pending before the Tribunal, the appellant  decided to entrust
\n\tthe work, which had till\tthen been performed by these workers in the
\n\tWater Works  Section, to a contractor. On the employment of the
\n\tcontractor by the Municipality  for  the self-same work, the
\n\tservices of\tthe respondents became unnecessary and the appellant
\n\tpassed\tthe orders\tof  retrenchment.  It is, therefore, clear that by
\n\tretrenchment of the respondents even the temporary employment of the
\n\t workers  ceased while their dispute before the Tribunal was pending
\n\tin order to improve that temporary and insecure status.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.
\n\tRetrenchment  may  not, ordinarily,under all circumstances, amount
\n\tto alteration of the conditions of  service. \tFor instance, when a
\n\twage dispute is pending before a Tribunal and on account of the
\n\tabolition of a particular  department the workers therein have to be
\n\tretrenched by  the employer,such a retrenchment cannot amount to
\n\talteration of the conditions of service. In this particular case,
\n\thowever, the subject matter: being directly connected  with the
\n\tconversion  of the temporary\temployment into permanent, tampering
\n\twith\tthe status quo ante of these workers  is  a\tclear alteration of
\n\tthe conditions of their  service.\tThey were  entitled during the
\n\tpendency of the proceeding  before the Tribunal to continue as
\n\ttemporary employees hoping for a better dispensation in the pending
\n\tadjudication. And if\tthe appellant wanted to effect a change of
\n\ttheir  system  in getting\tthe work done through a contractor instead
\n\tof  by these temporary workers, it was incumbent upon the appellant
\n\tto obtain  prior permission of the Tribunal to change the conditions
\n\tof their employment leading to  retrenchment  of their services.\tThe
\n\talteration of the method of work culminating in termination of the
\n\tservices by way of retrenchment in this ease has a direct impact on
\n\tthe  adjudication proceeding. The alteration effected in the
\n\ttemporary  employment of the respondents which was their condition
\n\tof service immediately before the commencement of the proceeding
\n\tbefore the Tribunal, is in regard to a matter connected  with the
\n\tpending industrial dispute.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.
\n\t  The\tcharacter of the temporary employment of  the\trespondents
\n\tbeing a direct issue before the Tribunal, that condition  of
\n\temployment, however  insecure, must  subsist during\tthe pendency of
\n\tthe dispute before the Tribunal and cannot be altered to their
\n\tprejudice by putting an end to that temporary condition.  This could
\n\thave been  done\tonly with the express permission of the Tribunal.
\n\tIt goes  without saying that the respondents were directly concerned
\n\tin the pending industrial dispute. No one also deny that snapping of
\n\tthe  temporary employment of\tthe respondents is not to their
\n\tprejudice. All the five features adverted to above are present in
\n\tthe instant case. To permit rupture in  employment, in this case,
\n\twithout the prior sanction of the Tribunal will be to set at
\n\tnaught\tthe avowed object of section  33  which  is principally
\n\tdirected to preserve the status quo under specified  circumstances
\n\tin the, interest of industrial peace during the adjudication. We
\n\tare,  therefore, clearly  of opinion that the appellant has
\n\tcontravened the provisions of section 33(1)(a) of the Act and the
\n\tcomplaint under  section 33A, at the instance of the respondents, is
\n\tmaintainable. The submission of Mr. Parekh to the contrary  cannot
\n\tbe \taccepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.\tThat,
\n\thowever, does not conclude the matter.  The Tribunal was clearly in
\n\terror in not adjudicating the complaint on the merits. It is well
\n\tsettled that in a complaint under section 32A, event if the employer
\n\tis found to have contravened the provisions of section 33, the
\n\tTribunal has to pronounce  upon the merits of the dispute between
\n\tthe\tparties.’ The order passed in an application under section\t 33A
\n\tis  an\taward  similar to one passed in a reference  under section 10
\n\tof the Act.\tThe award passed has to be submitted to  the\t Government
\n\tand the same has to be  published  under section\t17 of the Act.  For
\n\tthe purposes of the Act the complaint under section 33A takes, as it
\n\twere, the form of a reference  of an industrial dispute by the
\n\tappropriate\t authority and the same has to be disposed of in a like
\n\tmanner. The Tribunal  has committed an error of jurisdiction in
\n\tdeclining to adjudicate the matter and to make its award  on the
\n\tmerits as required under the law. The High Court was, therefore,
\n\tnot right in dismissing the writ application  of the appellant in
\n\tlimine.  We should also. observe that, in the absence of
\n\tadjudication on the merits by the  Tribunal, the High Court was not
\n\tright in holding that the  retrenchment by the appellant was “a
\n\tgross act of victimisation”.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tcase when industrial dispute is pending mandate of section 33 is to
\n\tmaintain status quo qua service condition of workmen.  This aspect
\n\tconsidered by Apex Court in case of P. D. Sharma Vs. State Bank of
\n\tIndia reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 985.  The relevant para 12
\n\tto 14 are quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“12.\tIn
\n\t Strawboard\tManufacturing Co. v. Govind(1)\t this  Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t   “The
\n\t plain  object  of  the  section  was to  maintain\tthe  status quo
\n\tas far\tas possible during the pendency of any industrial dispute
\n\tbefore a tribunal. But it seems to have\tbeen felt that S. 33, as it
\n\tstood before the amendment of\t1956, was too stringent for\tit
\n\tcompletely took away the right of the employer to  make any
\n\talteration in the  conditions  of service  or to make any order of
\n\tdischarge  or dismissal without making any distinction as to whether
\n\t such alteration or such an  order  of discharge\t or  dismissal\twas
\n\tin\t any  manner connected\t with the dispute pending before an
\n\tindustrial  authority.  It seems to have\tbeen felt  therefore that
\n\tthe stringency of the provision should be softened and the employer
\n\tshould be permitted  to  make\tchanges in conditions  of  service
\n\tetc.  which  were not connected\t with the dispute pending before  an
\n\tindustrial  tribunal.  For the same reason  it was felt that the
\n\tauthority of the employer to dismiss  or discharge a workman should
\n\tnot  be completely  taken away where the dismissal or discharge
\n\twas  dependent  on   the   matters unconnected  with the dispute
\n\tpending  before any  tribunal.  At the same time it  seems  to have
\n\tbeen felt that some safeguards should  be provided\tfor a workman who
\n\tmay be  discharged or dismissed during the pendency of a  dispute on
\n\taccount of some matter unconnected with the dispute.\tConsequently S.
\n\t33 was re-drafted in 1956 and considerably expanded.” (1)
\n\t[1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 618, 623.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.\tBy
\n\tenacting s. 33 the Parliament wanted to ensure a fair and
\n\tsatisfactory enquiry of an industrial dispute undisturbed by any
\n\taction on the part of the employer which  could  create fresh  cause
\n\tfor disharmony between him and  his employees. The  object  of\t s.
\n\t33 is that during the  pendency  of  an industrial  dispute status
\n\tquo should be maintained and no further element of discord should be
\n\tintroduced. But then distinction was made between matters\tconnected
\n\twith\t the industrial dispute and those unconnected with it.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.\tWhile
\n\t construing the scope of sub-s. 3 of s. 33 we have  to bear in mind
\n\tthe fact that under the common law the employer has a right to
\n\tpunish his employee for misconduct. Therefore all that we have to
\n\tsee is, to what extent\tthat right is taken away by sub-s. 3 of S.\n<\/p>\n
\t33. There is no doubt that  at the time the application in question
\n\twas made,  an industrial dispute was pending between the  respondent
\n\tand its  employees. It is admitted that the appellant is a
\n\t‘protected workman’. He had not been discharged or punished before
\n\tthe industrial dispute was decided, though no  doubt the respondent
\n\thad proposed to dismiss him after obtaining- the necessary
\n\tpermission from the tribunal. The application for  permission to
\n\tdismiss him was made during the  pendency of the principal dispute.
\n\tNo such permission would have been  necessary  if  no  industrial
\n\tdispute  between\tthe respondent and its employees was pending.
\n\tHence, the\tsole reason for  that  application\twas the  pendency
\n\tof\tthe industrial   dispute.\tOnce  the  industrial dispute\twas
\n\tdecided,  the  ban placed on the common law, statutory  or
\n\tcontractual  rights of the respondent stood removed  and  it was
\n\tfree to exercise those rights.  Thereafter there was  no need  to
\n\ttake anybody’s permission to exercise its  rights. In other words,
\n\tthe limitation placed on  the\trespondent’s rights by  sub-s.  3 of
\n\tS. 33 disappeared  the\t moment the industrial  dispute was decided.
\n\tWe are in agreement\twith the tribunal that it had no competence to
\n\tconsider\tthe application  made  by the respondent  after the
\n\tindustrial dispute was decided. ”\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tApex Court has also taken similar view in case of  M\/s
\n\tLokmat Newspapers Pvt Ltd Vs. Shankarprasad reported in 1999 AIR SCW
\n\t2565. The relevant para 25 and 30 are quoted as
\n\tunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“25.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe aforesaid statutory requirements leave no room for doubt that
\n\tafter closing the investigation and after having     arrived at the
\n\tconclusion that no settlement is possible between the parties, the
\n\tConciliation Officer has to spend some more time before submitting
\n\this detailed written report about failure of consideration for
\n\tinformation and necessary action by the State Government.  In the
\n\tvery nature of things, therefore, such requirement will take at
\n\tleast a couple of days, if not more, for the conciliator after
\n\tclosing the investigation to enable him to send an appropriate
\n\treport to the State Government.  It is, therefore, obvious that on
\n\t22.6.1982 when by 4.35 p.m. the Conciliation Officer declared that
\n\tsettlement was not closed the investigation, neither his statutory
\n\tfunction did not come to an end nor did he become functus officio.
\n\tHis jurisdiction had to continue till he submitted his report as per
\n\tSection 12(4) to the appropriate Government. Even such   preparation
\n\tof the report and sending of the same from his end to the
\n\tappropriate Government would obviously have taken at least a few
\n\tdays after 22.6.1982.  It must, therefore, be held that the
\n\tconciliator remained in charge of the conciliation proceedings at
\n\tleast for a couple of days after 22.6.1982.  It is, therefore,
\n\tdifficult to appreciate how within half an hour after the closing of
\n\tinvestigation by the conciliator and before his getting even a
\n\tbreathing time to prepare his detailed written report about failure
\n\tof conciliation to be sent to the Government as per Section 12(4),
\n\tthe appellant could persuade itself to presume that conciliation
\n\tproceedings had ended and, therefore, it was not required to follow
\n\tthe procedure of Section 33(1) and straightaway could pass the
\n\timpugned order of retrenchment within 25 minutes of the closing of
\n\tthe investigation by the conciliator on the very same day.  It is
\n\tdifficult to appreciate the reasoning of the Labour Court that after
\n\tthe closer of investigation the conciliator became functus officio
\n\tand the management could not have approached him for  express
\n\twritten permission to pass the impugned order.  It is easy to
\n\tvisualise that even on the same day i.e. on 22.6.1982 or even on the
\n\tnext day, before the conciliator  had time even to start writing his
\n\treport, such an express permission could have been asked for by the
\n\tappellant as the conciliator by then could not be said to have
\n\twashed his hand off the conciliation proceedings. He remained very
\n\tmuch seized of these proceedings till at least the time the report
\n\tleft his end apart from the further question whether conciliation
\n\tproceedings could be said to have continued till the report reached
\n\tthe State Government. Thus, on the express language of Section 12(4)
\n\tthe conclusion is inevitable that closer of investigation by 4.35
\n\tp.m. on 22.6.1982 did not amount to termination of conciliation
\n\tproceedings by that very time.  The argument of learned counsel for
\n\tthe appellant was that closer
\n\tof investigation automatically amounted to termination of
\n\tconciliation proceedings. This argument proceeds on a wrong premise
\n\tthat closer of investigation by the conciliator is the same as
\n\tcloser of conciliation proceedings. The legislature while enacting
\n\tSection 12(4) has deliberately not used the words `closer of
\n\tconciliation’ but, on the contrary, provided that after closer of
\n\tinvestigation something more was required to be done by the
\n\tconciliator as laid down under Section 12(4) before he can be said
\n\tto have done away with conciliation proceedings earlier initiated by
\n\thim.  On this
\n\tconclusion alone the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the
\n\tHigh Court that the impugned order of termination dated 22.6.1982
\n\twas issued by the appellant without following the procedure of
\n\tSection 33(1) of the I.D.  Act has to be sustained.”\n<\/p>\n
\t30.\tOn
\n\tthe contrary, we find that the aforesaid decision has taken a
\n\tcorrect view on the question posed for our consideration in the
\n\tpresent case.  In view of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, there
\n\twas no escape from the conclusion to which the Division Bench in the
\n\timpugned judgment reached that on 22.6.1982 when the order of
\n\tretrenchment was passed against the respondent, the
\n\tappellant-management  had committed breach of  Section 33(1) of the
\n\tAct by not passing the said order after obtaining express previous
\n\tpermission in writing of the Conciliation Officer before whom the
\n\tconciliation proceedings must be held to be pending in the evening
\n\tof 22.6.1982.  The impugned retrenchment order must be held to be
\n\tillegal being contrary to the aforesaid provision of the I.D. Act.
\n\tPoint No.2 is, therefore, answered in affirmative against the
\n\tappellant and in favour of the respondent. ”\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of aforesaid observation made by Apex Court and considering
\n\tfact which are narrated in present petition, when conciliation
\n\tproceeding is pending the notice has been issued by Conciliation
\n\tofficer on 7\/3\/2011. Therefore, let other side may file reply to
\n\tpresent petition.\n<\/p>\n
Issue
\n\tnotice to respondents returnable on 18\/4\/2011. Meanwhile, it is
\n\tdirected to respondent no. 1 not to terminate service of any
\n\tpetitioner till 18\/4\/2011.  Direct service is permitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(H.K.RATHOD,
\nJ)<\/p>\n
asma\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Sarman vs State on 29 March, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4060\/2011 12\/ 12 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4060 of 2011 ========================================================= SARMAN SANGA KODIYATAR & 14 – Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : […]<\/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-132512","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSarman vs State on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sarman vs State on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-29T17:18:28+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sarman vs State on 29 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-29T17:18:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2939,\"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\\\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Sarman vs State on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-29T17:18:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sarman vs State on 29 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sarman vs State on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sarman vs State on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-29T17:18:28+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sarman vs State on 29 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-29T17:18:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011"},"wordCount":2939,"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\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011","name":"Sarman vs State on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-29T17:18:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarman-vs-state-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sarman vs State on 29 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132512","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=132512"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132512\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132512"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132512"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132512"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}