{"id":133752,"date":"2010-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-04T16:03:41","modified_gmt":"2018-11-04T10:33:41","slug":"state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Workers on 31 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs Workers on 31 March, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/7322\/2001\t 8\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \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. 7322 of 2001\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 11806 of 2006\n \n\nIn\nSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7322 of 2001\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nBANK OF INDIA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nWORKERS\nOF STATE BANK OF INDIA, THRO' P.B. KARYEE, &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPRANAV G DESAI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR ABHISHEK M MEHTA for Respondent(s) :\n1, \nDELETED for Respondent(s) :\n2, \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 AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nDate\n: 31\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner State Bank of India has challenged an award dated<br \/>\n\t12.3.2001 rendered by the Industrial Judicial Commission in<br \/>\n\tReference (ITC) No.5\/94 by which the petitioner bank was directed to<br \/>\n\treinstate the respondent workman on his original post with 50%<br \/>\n\tback-wages.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shortly<br \/>\n\tstated facts are as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1\tShri<br \/>\n\tP.B. Karyee, a member of the respondent Union was employed as a peon<br \/>\n\tby the petitioner bank. In discharge of his duties, he was alleged<br \/>\n\tto have committed serious misconducts. Charge-sheet dated 7.6.1983<br \/>\n\twas filed against him leveling following allegations :\n<\/p>\n<p> a)<br \/>\n\tAn amount of Rs. 10,000\/- was deposited by you in cash in your S.B,.<br \/>\n\tA\/c. No. 31\/3772 on 3-9-1981 and you withdrew almost the entire<br \/>\n\tamount on the next day. A transaction of such magnitude was<br \/>\n\tobviously beyond the known sources of your income.\n<\/p>\n<p>b)\tAs<br \/>\n\tstated in your statement of assets and liabilities, you had obtained<br \/>\n\ta fiat car (Regd. No. GJE-7058) from Shri K.R. Acharya and had it<br \/>\n\tregistered in the name of your wife, Smt. Sitaben P. Karyee.\n<\/p>\n<p>c)\tOn<br \/>\n\t11th October, 1982 you encashed a blank signed S.B.<br \/>\n\twithdrawal from S.B. A\/c. of Shri K.R. Acharya at the teller counter<br \/>\n\tat the Branch after filling up an amount of Rs. 2,000\/- in your own<br \/>\n\thand writing. The said amount was later redeposited by you in the<br \/>\n\tsaid account.\n<\/p>\n<p>d)\tYou<br \/>\n\tassisted Shri K.R. Acharya and his associates, mainly A.B. Acharya<br \/>\n\tand Shri Jayant R. Acharya, in transacting business on their behalf<br \/>\n\tin respect of accounts at various other banks at Gandhinagar,<br \/>\n\tincluding I.O.B., P.N.B. Allahabad Bank, etc. despite knowing the<br \/>\n\tfraudulent nature of those transactions. Moreover, you did this<br \/>\n\tduring your duty hours neglecting your duties in the bank.\n<\/p>\n<p>e)\tYou<br \/>\n\tassisted Shri K.R. Acharya while he was working on the cash book<br \/>\n\tbalancing desk and allege facilitate destruction removal of cheques<br \/>\n\treceived through inward clearing and the manipulation of books for<br \/>\n\tthe purpose of balancing the days cash book.\n<\/p>\n<p>f)\tYou<br \/>\n\twere performing household work for Acharya and were also aware about<br \/>\n\tShri Acharya&#8217;s activities in Bombay including their residential<br \/>\n\taddress and other places of visit <\/p>\n<p>2.2\tDelinquent<br \/>\n\tdenied the charges. A departmental inquiry was therefore, conducted.<br \/>\n\tThe  inquiry officer submitted his report dated 11.2.1985 in which<br \/>\n\the came to the following conclusions :\n<\/p>\n<p> i)\tImputation\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) has been proved.\n<\/p>\n<p>ii)\tImputation\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) has been partly proved.\n<\/p>\n<p>iii)\tImputation\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) has been proved.\n<\/p>\n<p>iv)\tImputation\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d) has been partly proved.\n<\/p>\n<p>v)\tImputation\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(e) has not been proved.\n<\/p>\n<p>vi)\tImputation\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(f) in the form stated in the charge-sheet has been  proved to some<br \/>\n\textent but is not adequate to substantiate the main charge.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.3\tConsidering<br \/>\n\tthe inquiry officer&#8217;s report and submission of the delinquent,<br \/>\n\tdisciplinary authority in its  detailed order dated 31.12.1986<br \/>\n\timposed punishment of dismissal from service on the workman. Workman<br \/>\n\tpreferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate<br \/>\n\tauthority however, by order dated 18.6.1987 dismissed the appeal.<br \/>\n\tWorkman sought reference before the Industrial Judicial Commission<br \/>\n\twhich by impugned order dated 12.3.2001 allowed the reference,<br \/>\n\tsetting aside the dismissal order, directed reinstatement of workman<br \/>\n\twith 50% back-wages. Bank is therefore, before this Court<br \/>\n\tchallenging the said award.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave heard learned advocate for the bank as well as for the workman.\n<\/p>\n<p>On<br \/>\n\tbehalf of the bank, learned advocate Shri Desai submitted that the<br \/>\n\tIndustrial Commission ought not to have interfered with the findings<br \/>\n\tarrived at by the inquiry officer as upheld by the disciplinary<br \/>\n\tauthority and appellate authority. He submitted that after<br \/>\n\tconducting full fledged departmental inquiry, following the<br \/>\n\tprinciples of natural justice and rules of the bank, considering the<br \/>\n\tgravity of the charges, holding the charges to be proved, the<br \/>\n\tdisciplinary authority imposed punishment which ought not to have<br \/>\n\tbeen interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>On<br \/>\n\tthe other hand, learned advocate Shri Abhishek Mehta for the workman<br \/>\n\tcontended that the findings arrived at during the course of inquiry<br \/>\n\tare perverse and based on no evidence. It is submitted that the<br \/>\n\tIndustrial Commission therefore, rightly overruled such conclusions.<br \/>\n\tHe further submitted that in any case, quantum of punishment is<br \/>\n\texcessive. He contended that against large number of other officers<br \/>\n\tof the bank who were involved in the scandal, no steps have been<br \/>\n\ttaken or at any rate no serious punishment imposed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Having<br \/>\n\theard the learned advocates for the parties, I find that the inquiry<br \/>\n\tofficer had discussed the evidence threadbare to come to his factual<br \/>\n\tfindings. In particular, with respect to charge (a), he found that<br \/>\n\tsame was duly established. One may recall charge(a) pertains to an<br \/>\n\tamount of Rs. 10,000\/- which was deposited by the delinquent in cash<br \/>\n\tin his bank account on 3.9.1981 and very next day, he withdrew the<br \/>\n\tentire amount. It was alleged that transaction was of such magnitude<br \/>\n\twhich was beyond his known source of income.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.1\tThe<br \/>\n\ttransaction of depositing of Rs. 10,000\/- in cash in his bank<br \/>\n\taccount and subsequent withdrawal thereof by the delinquent was<br \/>\n\tproved through documentary evidence. This was not even seriously<br \/>\n\tdisputed by the delinquent. His defence however, was that the amount<br \/>\n\twas received by him from someone to be handed over to the bank<br \/>\n\tofficer Acharya. Since Acharya was not immediately available,<br \/>\n\tinstead of carrying such amount in cash, he deposited in his own<br \/>\n\tbank account, withdrew the same next day for being handed over to<br \/>\n\tAcharya. This defence has not been believed by the inquiry officer<br \/>\n\tby giving cogent reasons. The disciplinary authority as well as the<br \/>\n\tappellate authority also concurred with such conclusions.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.2<br \/>\n\tIn my view, the Industrial Commission brushed aside the factual<br \/>\n\tfindings of the employer arrived at pursuant to a domestic inquiry,<br \/>\n\twithout valid reasons. It is by now well settled that the findings<br \/>\n\tof the fact arrived at during the course of inquiry, Courts and<br \/>\n\ttribunals would not interfere unless, findings are found to be<br \/>\n\tperverse. If there is some legal evidence on record to support the<br \/>\n\tcharge and such evidence has been accepted by the competent<br \/>\n\tauthority, it would be permissible for the Courts to interfere with<br \/>\n\tthe findings. Admittedly, delinquent was employed as a peon in the<br \/>\n\tbank. In the year 1983, his income would certainly not justify his<br \/>\n\thandling cash amount of Rs. 10,000\/- of his own. Industrial<br \/>\n\tCommission in my view erroneously came to the conclusion that  In<br \/>\n\tmy opinion, by depositing Rs. 10,000\/- on one day in the bank and<br \/>\n\twithdrawing the said amount on the next day does not violate any<br \/>\n\trule and it cannot be said that he was having the amount in excess<br \/>\n\tof his source of income and therefore, it cannot be said that he has<br \/>\n\tcommitted any fraud.  Charge also did not allege that delinquent<br \/>\n\thad committed fraud. Charge was that transaction was of such a<br \/>\n\tmagnitude which was beyond his known source of income.\n<\/p>\n<p>With<br \/>\n\trespect to charge(b) also, I find that same was sufficiently<br \/>\n\tserious. It appears that there was large scale scandalous fraud in<br \/>\n\tthe particular branch of the bank were delinquent was serving. One<br \/>\n\tofficer Shri K.R. Acharya seems to be the main person. His several<br \/>\n\ttransactions were being inquired into and investigated into. During<br \/>\n\tsuch inquiries, it was found that delinquent had made statement of<br \/>\n\tassets and liabilities that he had obtained a fiat car from Shri<br \/>\n\tK.R. Acharya and same is registered in the name of his wife Smt.<br \/>\n\tSitaben Karyee. This charge also was held to be partly proved by the<br \/>\n\tinquiry officer through reliable evidence. Statements of witnesses<br \/>\n\twere recorded.\u00a0In fact delinquent himself had made declaration.<br \/>\n\tHe later on sought to change his version substituting that the car<br \/>\n\twas of Mr. Acharya and it was only a benami transaction in the name<br \/>\n\tof his wife. This defence was rejected by the inquiry officer. The<br \/>\n\tdisciplinary authority considering all the aspects of the matter,<br \/>\n\tconcluded against the delinquent. Industrial Commission however,<br \/>\n\toverruled the findings making following observations :\n<\/p>\n<p>:43\t&#8230;On<br \/>\n\tthe basis of the reasons given by the inquiry officer, it is clear<br \/>\n\tthat car is not registered in the name of second party. As there was<br \/>\n\tparking space in front of the house of second party, Shri Acharya<br \/>\n\tused to park his car at that place and therefore it cannot be said<br \/>\n\tthat  the second party has committed any offence looking to the<br \/>\n\trules of the bank. According to the provisions of standing order, it<br \/>\n\tcannot be said that the first party bank has proved this charge<br \/>\n\tagainst the second party. I therefore come to the conclusion that<br \/>\n\tthis charge is not proved against the second party.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.1\tIn<br \/>\n\tmy view, the Industrial Commission ought not to have interfered in<br \/>\n\tabove manner.\n<\/p>\n<p>Further<br \/>\n\twith respect to charge(d), the inquiry officer relied on extensive<br \/>\n\tdocumentary as well as oral evidence to hold that charge was partly<br \/>\n\tproved. Charge also in my view was grave. It was alleged that<br \/>\n\tdelinquent had assisted Shri K.R. Acharya and his associates in<br \/>\n\ttransacting business on their behalf in respect of several accounts<br \/>\n\tat various other banks at Gandhinagar knowing fully well the<br \/>\n\tfraudulent nature of such transactions. Inquiry Officer found charge<br \/>\n\twas partially proved. It is not necessary to go into further details<br \/>\n\tof the manner in which in the impugned order various factors have<br \/>\n\tbeen overruled. Suffice it to state that there was sufficient<br \/>\n\tmaterial on record to permit the disciplinary authority to come to<br \/>\n\tthe conclusion regarding the guilt of the workman. Such findings<br \/>\n\tought not to have been upturned without valid reason.\n<\/p>\n<p>Significantly<br \/>\n\tvalidity of the departmental inquiry was never in question. Neither<br \/>\n\tbefore the Commission nor before this Court, delinquent has<br \/>\n\tchallenged the legality of the departmental inquiry. In that view of<br \/>\n\tthe matter, when I find that the Industrial Commission seriously<br \/>\n\terred in interfering with the factual findings arrived at by the<br \/>\n\tdisciplinary authority as upheld by the appellate authority, I have<br \/>\n\tno choice but to restore the order of punishment. Considering the<br \/>\n\tseriousness of the charges proved, there is no case for reduction of<br \/>\n\tthe punishment also.  Charge pertains to integrity and involvement<br \/>\n\tof the delinquent in certain fraudulent transactions. It may be that<br \/>\n\the was not the kingpin of the said scandal. It may be that he was<br \/>\n\tinvolved in a small way. Nevertheless, when  it is shown that he was<br \/>\n\temployee of the bank and the bank concerned was of the opinion that<br \/>\n\torder of dismissal would be called for, I cannot substitute my<br \/>\n\tjudgement for that of employer.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthe result, petition is allowed and disposed of. Award  dated dated<br \/>\n\t12.3.2001  rendered by Industrial Judicial Commission in Reference<br \/>\n\t(ITC) No.5\/94 is quashed. Rule made absolute in above terms.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of order passed in the main matter, civil application does not<br \/>\n\tsurvive. Disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Akil<br \/>\nKureshi,J.)<\/p>\n<p>(raghu)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court State vs Workers on 31 March, 2010 Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/7322\/2001 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7322 of 2001 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11806 of 2006 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7322 of 2001 For [&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-133752","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State vs Workers on 31 March, 2010 - 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\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Workers on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-04T10:33:41+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Workers on 31 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-04T10:33:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1804,\"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\\\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Workers on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-04T10:33:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Workers on 31 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"State vs Workers on 31 March, 2010 - 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\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Workers on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-04T10:33:41+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Workers on 31 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-04T10:33:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010"},"wordCount":1804,"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\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010","name":"State vs Workers on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-04T10:33:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-workers-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Workers on 31 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/133752","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=133752"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133752\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}