{"id":144520,"date":"2008-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008"},"modified":"2015-07-30T16:24:27","modified_gmt":"2015-07-30T10:54:27","slug":"divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Divisional Forest Officer vs Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2008<\/div>\n
C.W.P. No.3962 of 2007                                                -1-\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                      AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                                   C.W.P. No.3962 of 2007\n                                                   Decided on : 25-11-2008\n\nDivisional Forest Officer\n                                                               ....Petitioner\n                     VERSUS\n\nPresiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar & another\n                                                             ....Respondents<\/pre>\n
CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.\n<\/p>\n
       HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH.\n<\/p>\n
Present:- Mr. Sunil Nehra, Addl. A.G., Haryana
\n          for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. R.K. Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
\nHEMANT GUPTA, J<\/p>\n
          The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award passed<\/p>\n
by the Labour Court on 17.08.2006 (Annexure P-3), whereby an Industrial<\/p>\n
Dispute raised by respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “the<\/p>\n
workman”) was answered in favour of the workman and the workman has<\/p>\n
been ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and other<\/p>\n
consequential benefits including 50% back wages from the date of issuance<\/p>\n
of demand notice till the date of publication of the Award and full wages<\/p>\n
thereafter till reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n
          It is the case of the workman that he was engaged as a Beldar-<\/p>\n
cum-Mali from 1.8.1988 to 30.06.1999. His services have been terminated<\/p>\n
on 1.7.1999 without assigning any reason or reasonable cause. It is the case<\/p>\n
of the workman that since he has worked for more than 240 days in a<\/p>\n
calendar year, therefore, termination without payment of retrenchment
\n C.W.P. No.3962 of 2007                                                   -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
compensation and compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of<\/p>\n
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), is void. It is also alleged<\/p>\n
that some juniors have been retained, whereas the workman has been<\/p>\n
retrenched. Thus, there is violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act.<\/p>\n
          The stand of the petitioner was that the workman has worked on<\/p>\n
need basis and he has not worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar<\/p>\n
year preceding the termination of his services. It was alleged that workman<\/p>\n
left job himself that his services were not terminated. It was also pleaded<\/p>\n
that no junior person has been retained.\n<\/p>\n
          The learned Labour Court after giving an opportunity to the<\/p>\n
parties to lead evidence, returned the finding that the workman has worked<\/p>\n
for 240 days and thus, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were<\/p>\n
required to be followed by the management. After returning such finding,<\/p>\n
the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of the workman with continuity<\/p>\n
of service and also awarded 50% of back wages from the date of demand<\/p>\n
notice till the date of publication of the Award and full wages thereafter till<\/p>\n
reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n
          Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in cases reported as Ghaziabad Development Authority &<\/p>\n
another Vs. Ashok Kumar & another, 2008 (4) SCC 261, Mahboob<\/p>\n
Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula,<\/a> (2008) 1 SCC 575, M.P.<\/p>\n
Administration Vs. Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 SCC 748, Utrranchal forest<\/p>\n
Development Corpn. Vs. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 813, State of<\/p>\n
M.P. And others Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575, to contend<\/p>\n
that the post under the State are required to be filled up in terms of the<\/p>\n
Recruitment Rules and by inviting applications from all eligible candidates.
\n C.W.P. No.3962 of 2007                                                -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
It is contended that the respondent-workman was engaged on daily wages<\/p>\n
without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution, therefore, even if the workman has completed 240 days of<\/p>\n
service, the said workman is not entitled to be reinstated and also for the<\/p>\n
grant of back wages. In M.P. Administration’s case (supra), the Court held<\/p>\n
to the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
          6.     “The question, however, which arises for consideration is as
\n          to whether in a situation of this nature, the learned Single Judge
\n          and consequently the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court
\n          should have directed reinstatement of the respondent with full
\n          back wages. Whereas at one point of time, such a relief used to be
\n          automatically granted, but keeping in view several other factors
\n          and in particular the doctrine of public employment and
\n          involvement of the public money, a change in the said trend is
\n          now found in the recent decisions of this Court. This Court in a
\n          large number of decisions in the matter of grant of relief of the
\n          kind distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a
\n          post and a permanent employee. It may be that the definition of
\n          “workman” as contained in Section 2(s) of the Act is wide and
\n          takes within its embrace all categories of workmen specified
\n          therein, but the same would not mean that even for the purpose of
\n          grant of relief in an industrial dispute referred for adjudication,
\n          application of constitutional scheme of equality adumbrated under
\n          Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in the light of a
\n          decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Secy., State of
\n          Karnataka v. Umadevi and<\/a> other relevant factors pointed out by
\n          the Court in a catena of decisions shall not be taken into
\n          consideration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          7.     The nature of appointment, whether there existed any
\n          sanctioned post or whether the officer concerned had any
\n          authority to make appointment are relevant factors.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          The said observations are in the context of engagement of a
\n C.W.P. No.3962 of 2007                                                  -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
workman engaged on temporary basis from time to time. It was held that<\/p>\n
the Industrial Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction under Section<\/p>\n
11A of the Act, when it directs the amount of compensation to be paid to the<\/p>\n
workman.\n<\/p>\n
           In    Mahboob Deepak’s case (supra), the Court held to the<\/p>\n
following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
           9.     “Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on
\n           daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by reason
\n           thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently
\n           absorbed in service or made permanent in absence of any statute
\n           or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed
\n           240 days of work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the
\n           same would not mean that his services were liable to be
\n           regularised.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In Ghaziabad Development Authority’s case (supra), the dispute<\/p>\n
referred to the Labour Court was regarding termination of daily wagers<\/p>\n
appointed on ad hoc basis. It was held to the following effect:-<\/p>\n
           19.       “A statutory authority is obligated to make recruitments
\n           only upon compliance with the equality clause contained in
\n           Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any appointment
\n           in violation of the said contitutional scheme as also the statutory
\n           recruitment rules, if any, would be void.        These facts were
\n           required to the kept in mind by the Labour Court before passing
\n           an award of reinstatement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           20.       Furthermore, public interest would not be subserved if
\n           after such a long lapse of time, the first respondent is directed to
\n           be reinstated in service.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In view of the aforesaid judgments, we are of the opinion that the<\/p>\n
workman, though has worked on daily wages intermittently for more than<\/p>\n
10 years, but is not entitled to be reinstated.\n<\/p>\n
 C.W.P. No.3962 of 2007                                                 -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
          In view of the above, we allow the present writ petition and the<\/p>\n
impugned award dated 17.08.2006 (Annexure P-3), is set aside.<\/p>\n
          Since the workman has worked for a period of more than 10 years<\/p>\n
prior to his termination, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to<\/p>\n
pay compensation of Rs.50,000\/- to the respondent-workman within a<\/p>\n
period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                                   (Hemant Gupta)\n                                                       Judge\n\n\n25th November 2008.                                (Nawab Singh)\nMonika                                                 Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Divisional Forest Officer vs Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2008 C.W.P. No.3962 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3962 of 2007 Decided on : 25-11-2008 Divisional Forest Officer ….Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar & another ….Respondents CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON’BLE […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-144520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDivisional Forest Officer vs Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2008 - 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\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Divisional Forest Officer vs Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-30T10:54:27+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Divisional Forest Officer vs Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-30T10:54:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1189,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Divisional Forest Officer vs Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-30T10:54:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Divisional Forest Officer vs Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2008 - 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\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-30T10:54:27+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-30T10:54:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008"},"wordCount":1189,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008","name":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-30T10:54:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-presiding-officer-on-25-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144520","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=144520"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144520\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}