{"id":154577,"date":"2011-09-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011"},"modified":"2017-08-22T17:27:44","modified_gmt":"2017-08-22T11:57:44","slug":"tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Tamil Nadu Water Supply And vs The Presiding Officer on 14 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tamil Nadu Water Supply And vs The Presiding Officer on 14 September, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 14\/09\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA\n\nW.P.(MD)No.6248 of 2007\n\n1.  Tamil Nadu Water Supply and\n    Drainage Board,\n    through its Managing Director,\n    Tamil Nadu Water Supply and\n    Drainage Board,\n    Chepauk,\n    Chennai-600 005.\n\n2.  The Executive Engineer,\n    Tamil Nadu Water Supply and\n    Drainage Board,\n    Presently at Thoothukudi,\n    Kovilpatti.\n\n3.  The Assistant Executive Engineer,\n    Tamil Nadu Water Supply and\n    Drainage Board,\n    Division No.2,\n    Sivakasi.\t\t\t\t\t..Petitioners\n\nVs\n\n1.  The Presiding Officer,\n    Labour Court,\n    Madurai.\n\n2.  S.Pushparaj\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents.\t\t\t\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,\npraying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the\nfirst respondent relating to the impugned order dated 09.04.2007 made in\nI.D.No.94\/2007 and to quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioner  ... M\/s.M.Ajmal Khan\n^For Respondents ... M\/s.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner challenges the award passed by the learned Labour Court,<br \/>\nordering the re-instatement of second respondent with continuity of service, but<br \/>\nwithout back-wages.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.  The second respondent was appointed as Mazdoor on 25.06.1985, for 90<br \/>\ndays  on daily wage basis. Thereafter with intermittent break, the second<br \/>\nrespondent  was allowed to continue in service till 1990, when his service was<br \/>\nterminated.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 2(a)(3) of the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act with a prayer to set aside the order of termination,<br \/>\ndated 30.06.1990, with consequential relief of re-instatement with full back-<br \/>\nwages and continuity of service.  The last pay drawn by the second respondent is<br \/>\nRs.510\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The case of the second respondent  before the Labour Court, was that<br \/>\neven though respondent No.2 had rendered service from 01.07.1985 till<br \/>\n30.06.1990, while terminating his services, no retrenchment compensation or<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing was given.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. It was also the case of the second respondent, that in the conciliation<br \/>\nproceedings, a decision was taken that the daily wage employees who had put in<br \/>\nmore than 480 days of service in two calendar years will be confirmed in<br \/>\nservice.  The settlement was arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The second respondent, claimed that having worked for more than 480<br \/>\ndays in two calendar years,he was entitled to confirmation under statutory<br \/>\nsettlement, and his service could not have been terminated,  by treating him to<br \/>\nbe a contractual or daily wage employee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The petition filed by the second respondent, was contested by the<br \/>\npetitioner, by submitting that the second respondent worked only for 90 days in<br \/>\nterms of his appointment letter. Thereafter, fresh appointment was given to him<br \/>\nevery time.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The respondent No.2 did not work for  480 days continuously  in two<br \/>\nyears,  therefor he was  neither entitled to claim confirmation, nor to any<br \/>\nrelief against the  order of termination from  service. The service of the<br \/>\nsecond respondent was terminated in terms of the contract of service.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. It was also the submitted that as the second respondent was a<br \/>\ncontractual employee and his service  was terminated as per the terms of the<br \/>\ncontract,therefore, in view of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act,<br \/>\nit will not fall within the definition of retrenchment, thus no retrenchment<br \/>\ncompensation was payable  nor any notice was required to be issued. The<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 was not entitled to benefit of Section 25-F of Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes Act..\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In view of the stand taken by the petitioner, the learned Labour Court<br \/>\nframed the following issues:\n<\/p>\n<p>\ta.  Whether the statement of the petitioner that he has worked for a<br \/>\nperiod of more than 480 days is correct?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tb.  Whether the order of termination is to be set aside and he be<br \/>\nreinstated into his service?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tC.  Other reliefs eligible to the petitioner, if any?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The crucial issue therefore was issue No.1.  In support of it, the<br \/>\nsecond respondent appeared in the witness box as P.W.1, and also produced<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P10, which was duly marked.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. However, the petitioner failed to lead any evidence  in support of the<br \/>\nstand taken in reply to the claim petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,  and specially in<br \/>\nview of the fact, that it was proved that the second respondent had worked with<br \/>\nthe petitioner from 01.07.1985 to 30.06.1990, a finding of fact,is recorded that<br \/>\nthe second respondent had put in 480 days of service in two calendar years, and<br \/>\nwas entitled to be confirmed, under statutory settlement and further that the<br \/>\norder of termination was in violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. Once it is not disputed that the second respondent was appointed with<br \/>\nintermittent breaks during the period  of five years, then, no fault can be<br \/>\nfound with the finding of the  learned Labour Court holding, that the second<br \/>\nrespondent is deemed to have worked continuously for 480 days in two calendar<br \/>\nyears.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. In any case, on admitted facts, the termination was in violation of<br \/>\nSection 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the repeated appointment with<br \/>\nintermittent breaks for a regular work cannot be treated to be a contractual<br \/>\nappointment to attract the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. The submission of the petitioner, that  the delay of seven years in<br \/>\nraising a reference rendered it incompetent only deserves to be noticed to be<br \/>\nrejected, as delay in raising reference  can  be a ground to see whether back<br \/>\nwages can be granted or not.  The learned Labour Court in this case did  not<br \/>\ngrant any back-wages to the second respondent. The  mere delay in raising the<br \/>\nreference, cannot be a ground to set aside the award, in view of the  settled<br \/>\nprinciple of law that there is no limitation for raising a reference, before the<br \/>\nlearned Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. No ground is made out to interfere, with the  well reasoned award of<br \/>\nthe learned Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. No merit. Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>vsn<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nLabour Court,<br \/>\nMadurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Tamil Nadu Water Supply And vs The Presiding Officer on 14 September, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14\/09\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.6248 of 2007 1. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, through its Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tamil Nadu Water Supply And vs The Presiding Officer on 14 September, 2011 - 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\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamil Nadu Water Supply And vs The Presiding Officer on 14 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-22T11:57:44+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\\\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamil Nadu Water Supply And vs The Presiding Officer on 14 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-22T11:57:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":846,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Water Supply And vs The Presiding Officer on 14 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-22T11:57:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Water Supply And vs The Presiding Officer on 14 September, 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":"Tamil Nadu Water Supply And vs The Presiding Officer on 14 September, 2011 - 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\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamil Nadu Water Supply And vs The Presiding Officer on 14 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-22T11:57:44+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\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamil Nadu Water Supply And vs The Presiding Officer on 14 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-22T11:57:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011"},"wordCount":846,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011","name":"Tamil Nadu Water Supply And vs The Presiding Officer on 14 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-22T11:57:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-water-supply-and-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-14-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamil Nadu Water Supply And vs The Presiding Officer on 14 September, 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\/154577","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=154577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154577\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}