{"id":141900,"date":"2010-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-18T02:30:07","modified_gmt":"2017-06-17T21:00:07","slug":"employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Employers In Relation To The M vs Concerned Workmen Ram Lakhan D on 9 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Employers In Relation To The M vs Concerned Workmen Ram Lakhan D on 9 April, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.\n                             W.P. (L) No. 3795 of 2004\n                                             ...\n              Employers in relation to the Management of Malkera Colliery of M\/s. Tata\n              Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Dhanbad                  ...     ...      Petitioner\n                                     -V e r s u s-\n              The concerned Workman Ram Lakhan Dusadh               ...     Respondent.\n                                             ...\nCORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.\n                                             ...\n              For the Petitioner             : - M\/s. Rajiv Ranjan, Abhay Kr. Mishra\n                                      and Faiz-ur-Rahman, Advocates.\n              For the Respondent             : - none.\n                                             ...\n16\/09.04.2010<\/pre>\n<p>                In spite of service of notice upon the sole Respondent, he has not<br \/>\n              chosen to appear even today, though this case was adjourned on several dates to<br \/>\n              enable his appearance. As such, this writ application is taken up for disposal at the<br \/>\n              stage of admission itself on the merits of the writ application.\n<\/p>\n<p>              2.             The petitioner, in this writ application, has challenged the Award<br \/>\n              dated-23.01.2004, of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal<br \/>\n              No. 2, Dhanbad, passed in Reference Case no. 105 of 1998, whereby the learned<br \/>\n              Tribunal has answered the Reference in favour of the concerned workman and<br \/>\n              against the sole Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>             3.              From the facts stated, It appears that the concerned workman, Ram<br \/>\n              Lakhan Dusadh was originally appointed as a permanent Miner against permanent<br \/>\n              vacancy at Malkhera Colliery of M\/s. TISCO on 11.06.1970 and at the time of his<br \/>\n              entry in service, on the basis of his declarations regarding his date of birth, the same<br \/>\n              was recorded as 08.07.1930 in his service records. Later, upon a dispute raised by the<br \/>\n              workman regarding the correctness of the entry of his date of birth in his service<br \/>\n              records, the Management referred him for his medical examination for determination<br \/>\n              of his age by the Medical Board. The Medical Board assessed the petitioner&#8217;s age and<br \/>\n              the corresponding date of birth as 17.04.1937. In consonance with the assessment<br \/>\n              made by the Medical Board, the workman&#8217;s date of birth in his service records was<br \/>\n              corrected and recorded as 17.04.1937. However, the corresponding correction in his<br \/>\n              Mining Sardar Certificate, was not made and the certificate continued to maintain the<br \/>\n              date as 08.07.1930.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                    It appears that the petitioner subsequently produced a Mining<br \/>\n              Sardar Certificate purported to have been issued in his name with a different date of<br \/>\n              birth, mentioned, therein, to read as 08.07.1942. Upon a suspicion that the revised<br \/>\n              date of birth may not have been recorded by the Board of Mining Examination, the<br \/>\n              matter was referred to the Board and it was confirmed that no such correction in the<br \/>\n              original Mining Sardar Certificate was made by the Board and that the workman has<br \/>\n              himself carried out certain interpolations in the Certificate to dishonestly obtain<br \/>\n              advantage in his favour.\n<\/p>\n<p>             4.              On the charge that he has indulged in acts of misconduct in as much as<br \/>\n he has interpolated the Certificate issued by the Mining Board, a departmental<br \/>\nproceeding was initiated against him after serving him with the memo of charge and<br \/>\nafter obtaining his explanations thereto. Though the Respondent-workman was<br \/>\ncalled upon to participate in the departmental proceedings but he did not appear and<br \/>\nconsequently, the departmental proceeding continued ex parte and at the end of the<br \/>\nenquiry on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner-<br \/>\nManagement proceeded to terminate his services.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.            Being aggrieved with the order of termination, the workman raised an<br \/>\nindustrial dispute, which upon being referred by the Central Government to the<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal vide Reference Case No. 105 of 1998, the Industrial Tribunal, as<br \/>\nmentioned above, passed the impugned Award against the Management holding that<br \/>\nthe termination of the workman&#8217;s service was illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.            Assailing the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned<br \/>\nAward, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the<br \/>\nTribunal has committed a patent illegality in as much as, though it has held that the<br \/>\nenquiry as conducted against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in<br \/>\naccordance with the principles of natural justice, yet it has proceeded to discuss the<br \/>\nentire evidences adduced before the Enquiry Officer and has recorded a finding<br \/>\ntotally different from the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel argues<br \/>\nthat this practice has been highly deprecated in several judgments of the Supreme<br \/>\ncourt and in this context refers to a judgment of the Apex court in the case of<br \/>\nGeneral Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Worker&#8217;s Union-versus-<br \/>\nManaging Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and others<br \/>\nreported in 2006 (110) FLR 492 SC. Learned counsel refers also to a Division Bench<br \/>\njudgment of this Court in the case of Management of M\/s. Usha Breco Ltd.-versus-<br \/>\nPresiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur and others reported in 2005 LAB. I.C.<br \/>\n986 JHC.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.            From perusal of the impugned Award, I do find that after framing the<br \/>\npreliminary issues regarding the fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry, the<br \/>\nTribunal has recorded its finding that the domestic enquiry was held in a fair and<br \/>\nproper manner and also in accordance with the principles of natural justice.<br \/>\nThereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to discuss the evidences on record, and thereby<br \/>\nfinding fault with the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>                      This, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner, could not have been indulged by the Tribunal, as has been held by the<br \/>\nSupreme Court in the case of General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories<br \/>\nWorker&#8217;s Union (Supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>8.            Even otherwise, from the observations recorded in the impugned<br \/>\nAward, it appears that the specific charge against the workman was that he had<br \/>\nindulged in acts of misconduct by committing fraud and acts of dishonesty, which is<br \/>\na misconduct in terms of Clause 19 (2) of the Company&#8217;s Standing Orders. In proof<br \/>\n       of such charge, the Enquiry Officer has relied upon the documents, which the<br \/>\n      workman himself had produced. The findings recorded by the Enquiry officer on the<br \/>\n      basis of such evidence, which was not controverted by the workman in course of the<br \/>\n      enquiry, ought not to have been interfered with by the Tribunal by exceeding its<br \/>\n      jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>      9.              In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I find merit in this<br \/>\n      writ application. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The impugned Award<br \/>\n      dated-23.01.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial<br \/>\n      Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case no. 105 of 1998 is hereby set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                  (D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)<br \/>\nAPK\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Employers In Relation To The M vs Concerned Workmen Ram Lakhan D on 9 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (L) No. 3795 of 2004 &#8230; Employers in relation to the Management of Malkera Colliery of M\/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Dhanbad &#8230; &#8230; Petitioner [&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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141900","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Employers In Relation To The M vs Concerned Workmen Ram Lakhan D on 9 April, 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\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Employers In Relation To The M vs Concerned Workmen Ram Lakhan D on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-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=\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-17T21:00:07+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Employers In Relation To The M vs Concerned Workmen Ram Lakhan D on 9 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-17T21:00:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":990,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Employers In Relation To The M vs Concerned Workmen Ram Lakhan D on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-17T21:00:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Employers In Relation To The M vs Concerned Workmen Ram Lakhan D on 9 April, 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":"Employers In Relation To The M vs Concerned Workmen Ram Lakhan D on 9 April, 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\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Employers In Relation To The M vs Concerned Workmen Ram Lakhan D on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-17T21:00:07+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Employers In Relation To The M vs Concerned Workmen Ram Lakhan D on 9 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-17T21:00:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010"},"wordCount":990,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010","name":"Employers In Relation To The M vs Concerned Workmen Ram Lakhan D on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-17T21:00:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/employers-in-relation-to-the-m-vs-concerned-workmen-ram-lakhan-d-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Employers In Relation To The M vs Concerned Workmen Ram Lakhan D on 9 April, 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\/141900","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=141900"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141900\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141900"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141900"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141900"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}