{"id":155561,"date":"2009-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-08T12:35:53","modified_gmt":"2017-10-08T07:05:53","slug":"ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2009<\/div>\n
CWP No. 7595 of 2009                              1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH\n\n                               CWP No. 7595 of 2009\n                               Date of decision July 16 2009\nRamesh Kumar\n\n                                                       .......   Petitioner\n                               Versus\n\nPresiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and another\n                                               .\n<\/pre>\n
                                                    …….Respondents<\/p>\n
CORAM:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN<\/p>\n
Present:-         Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate
\n                  for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                  Mr. S. S. Saini, Advocate
\n                  for respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
                        ****<\/p>\n
                  1.    Whether reporters of local newspapers may be
\n                        allowed to see the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
                  2.    To be referred to the reporters or not?\n<\/p>\n
                  3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the
\n                        digest?\n<\/p>\n
K. Kannan, J (oral).\n<\/p>\n
                  1.    The petitioner challenges the award of the Labour<\/p>\n
Court rejecting a reference made for          an adjudication whether the<\/p>\n
termination of services of the workman was legal and justified. In defence<\/p>\n
to an action by the workman complaining that he was illegally terminated<\/p>\n
from service, the response on behalf of the Management was that it had<\/p>\n
actually applied to the Government of Haryana for treating some workman<\/p>\n
as surplus and for permission to retrench them. That permission had been<\/p>\n
sought for by application dated 12.10.1990 and simultaneously a notice<\/p>\n
had also been sent to the workman explaining that his services would not<\/p>\n
be necessary. The permission was in fact granted by the Government,<\/p>\n
whereupon the workman was sent a letter of termination of his services<\/p>\n
and offer was made for payment through cheque for what he was entitled<\/p>\n
to. This was refused to be received but ultimately the workman turned up
\n CWP No. 7595 of 2009                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
in June, 1991 to sign a memorandum of settlement on 17.6.1991 and<\/p>\n
received a cheque in full accord and satisfaction. A receipt was also<\/p>\n
passed by the workman.\n<\/p>\n
                  2.     At the trial before the Labour Court, it was sought<\/p>\n
to be contended on behalf of the workman that some signatures had been<\/p>\n
taken in blank papers and that was sought to be utilized as though a<\/p>\n
voluntary settlement was made. Explaining the document that had been<\/p>\n
filed by the Management it was elicited through a witness that spoke about<\/p>\n
the documents on behalf of the Management that the workman had come<\/p>\n
to the factory in September, 1991 and that was when the signatures was<\/p>\n
taken. The attempt was therefore, to show that the so called settlement<\/p>\n
alleged to have been made on 17.6.1991 was not in fact made on that day<\/p>\n
and the evidence of Avtar Singh, a Management witness vindicated the<\/p>\n
stand of the workman that the signatures to the document had been taken<\/p>\n
on a blank paper. It was also contended on behalf of the workman that the<\/p>\n
settlement did not also confirm to Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes,<\/p>\n
Punjab Rules and the copy of the settlement had not been sent to the<\/p>\n
authorities which the relevant rule required. The workman raised a cloud<\/p>\n
on the genuineness of the settlement also by the fact that the Management<\/p>\n
had not referred to the alleged settlement at the time when the conciliation<\/p>\n
was in progress to terminate further lacks. The Labour Court, however, on<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence of both the parties found that the workman was<\/p>\n
indeed a party to the settlement and received the cheque and his<\/p>\n
contention that he had signed the document without being apprised of the<\/p>\n
recitals could not be true. On the objection that the Labour Court did not<\/p>\n
have a power to traverse beyond the scope of reference by adjudicating on<\/p>\n
the genuineness or otherwise of the settlement, the Labour Court reasoned<\/p>\n
that question whether he was terminated or not lawfully would require<\/p>\n
adjudication relating to the so called settlement as well. The Labour Court
\n CWP No. 7595 of 2009                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
found that the workman was guilty of fraudulent suppression relating to the<\/p>\n
settlement and rejected the reference.\n<\/p>\n
                    3.     Before me, it is contended by the workman that<\/p>\n
the settlement could not be true and referred to the contentions that the<\/p>\n
workman had advanced before the Labour Court pointing                 out to the<\/p>\n
discrepancy between the evidence of Avtar Singh that the signatures of the<\/p>\n
workman was taken in September, 1991 but the document itself made<\/p>\n
reference to the execution as having been made on 17.6.1991. The actual<\/p>\n
date of signing the document itself in my view does not obtain any great<\/p>\n
relevance. If there was evidence of Avtar Singh that the workman had<\/p>\n
signed only on September, 1991, he was either making a mistake about<\/p>\n
the month when it was signed or he was really subjecting it to an event<\/p>\n
that has taken place beyond the date which the document contained. The<\/p>\n
genuineness of the document will have to be tested on another ground as<\/p>\n
well, as to whether a person of full age understanding who subscribes his<\/p>\n
signatures but without apprising himself of the recitals could show his own<\/p>\n
laches to his benefit. If he had been so imprudent as not to apprise himself<\/p>\n
of the recitals he will have to lie low and take the consequences of his own<\/p>\n
failure. It is not as if the validity of the settlement will have to be considered<\/p>\n
on a stand-alone basis of whether he has signed the document on that<\/p>\n
particular date. The settlement refers to a cheque of Rs. 29533.70 and<\/p>\n
admittedly the said cheque had been received and later encashed by him.<\/p>\n
The demand notice itself was made nearly two years and four months after<\/p>\n
the event. The receipt of the cheque, its encashment and the complaint<\/p>\n
about the settlement only two years later betray the              falsity of the<\/p>\n
contentions of the workman that he did not know about the recital that he<\/p>\n
was not a party to the settlement.\n<\/p>\n
                    4.    The terms of the settlement will have also to be<\/p>\n
seen in the context of certain other events which are unimpeachable
\n CWP No. 7595 of 2009                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
namely the Management had applied to the Government for permission<\/p>\n
retrench some workman and such permission had also been granted by<\/p>\n
the Government. The learned counsel for the workman would state that<\/p>\n
the notice dated 12.10.1990 (Ex. M-2) did not make any pointed reference<\/p>\n
to the permission that was alleged to have been sought from the<\/p>\n
Government. It is indeed irrelevant that nor was there a need for such<\/p>\n
detail in the notice.     The fact that permission had been granted<\/p>\n
subsequently was itself proof of the fact that the Management had sought<\/p>\n
for permission.   The date when the cheque was made also bears the<\/p>\n
period which is relevant to the time when the Management had obtained<\/p>\n
permission from the Government. The cheque was dated 29.3.1991 which<\/p>\n
was about the time when the Management had also sent a notice along<\/p>\n
with cheque which however, was not received by the workman.            In my<\/p>\n
view, therefore, even the fact of non reference to the application made by<\/p>\n
the Management to the Government in its notice to the workman cannot in<\/p>\n
any way enable the workman to contend that the terms could not have<\/p>\n
been true.\n<\/p>\n
                  5.    If the memorandum for settlement is valid for the<\/p>\n
fact that the amount mentioned there was also received by the workman,<\/p>\n
the only other point that would require consideration is whether it conforms<\/p>\n
to the requirement of law as enjoined in rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes,<\/p>\n
Punjab Rules, 1958. Clause 4 states as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                        ” Where a settlement is arrived at between the
\n                  employer and his workman otherwise than in the
\n                  grounds of conciliation proceedings before a Board or a
\n                  conciliation officer the parties to the settlement was
\n                  jointly sent a copy thereof to the State Government, The
\n                  Labour Commissioner Punjab and the Conciliation
\n                  Officer concerned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The memorandum of settlement itself contains a clause 4 which states that
\n CWP No. 7595 of 2009                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
parties have agreed to send the copies of the settlement to the<\/p>\n
Government of Haryana. The necessity of having to send a copy is not so<\/p>\n
much to obtain its approval but more in the nature of information to the<\/p>\n
State as if to provide for a safety mechanism that the workman is not given<\/p>\n
a raw deal and is not in any way exploited by a wily Management It is not<\/p>\n
brought out in any way that the workman had complained to any authority<\/p>\n
that he had been victimized into signing some documents without being<\/p>\n
apprised of its recital or that he was forced to received a certain sum of<\/p>\n
money which he was unwilling to receive.      On the other hand, I have<\/p>\n
already pointed that the receipt of the cheque and its encashment were<\/p>\n
never in question.\n<\/p>\n
                     6.   The award of the Labour Court has considered<\/p>\n
every matter that is relevant and also adverted to all the questions of law<\/p>\n
that have been with the reference to the judgments of the High Courts and I<\/p>\n
think there is no need to repeat them for their reference in the award is<\/p>\n
sufficient to indicate that the Labour Court had addressed all the issues<\/p>\n
that were raised comprehensively. The writ petition is without merit and<\/p>\n
dismissed but however, sans costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       (K. KANNAN)
\n                                                         JUDGE
\nJuly 16, 2009
\narchana\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Ramesh Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2009 CWP No. 7595 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7595 of 2009 Date of decision July 16 2009 Ramesh Kumar ……. Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and another . …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. […]<\/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-155561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2009 - 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\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-08T07:05:53+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-08T07:05:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1457,\"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\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-08T07:05:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramesh Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2009 - 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\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-08T07:05:53+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-08T07:05:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009"},"wordCount":1457,"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\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009","name":"Ramesh Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-08T07:05:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 16 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/155561","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=155561"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155561\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}