{"id":158311,"date":"2011-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-08-25T12:04:17","modified_gmt":"2017-08-25T06:34:17","slug":"naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Naresh vs Desk on 28 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Naresh vs Desk on 28 April, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/4864\/2011\t 7\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4864 of 2011\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nNARESH\nM PARMAR C\/O ASSOCIATION OF RAILWAY - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDESK\nOFFICER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPH PATHAK for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n3. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 28\/04\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate Ms. Kamani for learned advocate Mr. PH Pathak on<br \/>\n\tbehalf of petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tpresent petition, petitioner has challenged order passed by<br \/>\n\trespondent no. 1 Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Labour<br \/>\n\tdated 5\/5\/2009, wherein decision has been taken by respondent no. 1<br \/>\n\twhile exercising power under section 12 subsection 5 of I. D. Act,<br \/>\n\t1947 and not referred industrial dispute for adjudication on the<br \/>\n\tground that claimant has raised matter belatedly after a period of<br \/>\n\tten years from the time of alleged discontinuation from employment.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Ms. Kanani relied upon one decision passed by this Court in<br \/>\n\tSCA no. 4354\/2006 dated 28\/2\/2011, wherein this Court has directed<br \/>\n\tto respondent no. 1 to reconsider entire matter and decision dated<br \/>\n\t10\/2\/2003 and referred industrial dispute immediately for<br \/>\n\tadjudication.  Therefore, on 30\/3\/2010, one review application made<br \/>\n\tby petitioner to Secretary Government of India page 18 Annexure E<br \/>\n\tbut learned advocate Ms. Kanani submitted that there is no response<br \/>\n\tor reply received by petitioner from respondent no. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\taspect has been considered by this Court in SCA no. 4354\/2006 dated<br \/>\n\t28\/2\/2011, wherein an identical question has been considered.<br \/>\n\tTherefore, relevant observation made by this Court in para 4 to 6<br \/>\n\tare quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner has approached to respondent No.1 by letter dated<br \/>\n17.7.2005 and requested to respondent No.1 to refer the industrial<br \/>\ndispute for adjudication to appropriate Industrial Tribunal as early<br \/>\nas possible. According to brief facts of present petition, the<br \/>\npetitioner was employed since 1992 to 1994 with respondent Nos.2 and\n<\/p>\n<p>3. But his service was terminated w.e.f. 1.8.1994. Therefore,<br \/>\nindustrial dispute under Section 2A of I.D.Act was raised by<br \/>\npetitioner before respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 after<br \/>\ncompletion of conciliation proceedings, come to conclusion that Union<br \/>\nhas failed to produce certain documents in support of its claim that<br \/>\nworkman has worked continuously for 240 days in a year. The<br \/>\nindustrial dispute is not maintainable. This decision has been taken<br \/>\non 10.2.2003 by respondent No.1 and not referred aforesaid industrial<br \/>\ndispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. This Court has<br \/>\npassed an order on 6.5.2003 in group of SCA No.6337 of 2003 and<br \/>\nallied matters, which is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8221;\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocate  Mr.    P.H.    Pathak  on behalf of  the<br \/>\npetitioners  in  these  petitions.    The Industrial  Dispute  has<br \/>\nbeen  raised by the petitioners before the respondent No.1.  The<br \/>\nrespondent  No.2  is  an employer.   The  said  dispute  has  been<br \/>\nraised  by the petitioners in respect to the termination under<br \/>\nSection 2 (A) of the I.D.  Act, 1947.  After admitting  the  matter<br \/>\nin   conciliation,  the  Conciliation  Officer  has  made failure<br \/>\nreport to the concerned authority under Section 1 2 (4_ of the I.D.<br \/>\nAct, 1947.  Thereafter, the respondent No.1 has passed an order and<br \/>\ndecided  not  to  refer  the matter  for  adjudication only on the<br \/>\nground that dispute was  raised  after  a  period  of  9  years<br \/>\nwithout  any justification for long delay.  Against the said<br \/>\ndecision, immediately,  the  petitioners  have  approached  to  the<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 with an  application  to  reconsider  the case  of<br \/>\nthe petitioners in light of the detail which has been supplied by the<br \/>\npetitioners to the respondent  No.2.    Learned advocate Mr.    P.H.<br \/>\n  Pathak has submitted that  though  there  is  a  detailed<br \/>\napplication   where   the justification   of   delay   has  been<br \/>\nnarrated  by  the petitioners and detail has been given, even  though<br \/>\n that  application remained pending with the respondent No.1 and no<br \/>\ndecision so far has been taken by the respondent No.1.Therefore, he<br \/>\nsubmitted that some suitable directions may be issued to the<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 so he may reconsider the matter  in  light  of  the<br \/>\napplication  submitted by the petitioners and in light of the<br \/>\ndecision which is  relied by  the  petitioners  and  he also<br \/>\nsuggested that let the matter may be considered by  the  respondent<br \/>\nNo.1  after giving reasonable  opportunity  to  the  petitioners.  He<br \/>\nalso  submitted  that  in  similar  situation  of   other employees,<br \/>\nwhen there was a delay of nine years, dispute has been referred for<br \/>\nadjudication by  the  same  officer where they were working with the<br \/>\nrespondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\nhave considered the submissions made by learned advocate Mr.  P.H.<br \/>\nPathak.    The respondent No.1 has taken the decision on dtd.<br \/>\n30.09.2002 and  came  to  the conclusion that the dispute has been<br \/>\nraised after a lapse of  over  9  years without any justification for<br \/>\nthe long delay and, therefore, dispute has not been  referred  for<br \/>\nadjudication.   There  is no question of any res judicata by  the<br \/>\nrespondent  No.1  in  passing  such  order   and respondent  No.1  is<br \/>\n entitled  to  reconsider the matter because whatever the decision is<br \/>\npassed by the respondent No.1 is  not  a  quasi  judicial  order,<br \/>\nbut  it  is  an administrative order.    Therefore,  respondent  No.1<br \/>\ncan reconsider the matter and  even  though,  application  to<br \/>\nreconsider  the  matter has been made by the petitioners, but no<br \/>\ndecision so far has been made  by  the  respondent No.1.   In  one<br \/>\ncase,  respondent  No.1  has decided the merits of the matter for<br \/>\nwhich respondent No.1 having  no jurisdiction.   Therefore  in that<br \/>\nalso, learned advocate Mr.  P.H.  Pathak has submitted that<br \/>\npetitioner will file reconsideration application to the respondent<br \/>\nNo.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n view  of  this  submission  made  by  learned advocate Mr.  P.H.<br \/>\nPathak, considering the facts that in all cases except one, the<br \/>\nreference has not been referred for adjudication only on the ground<br \/>\nof  delay  which  has not   been   justified   by   the  petitioners,<br \/>\n in  such circumstances, it is open for the petitioners to  justify<br \/>\nthe  delay by giving detail to the respondent No.1 and in that<br \/>\noccasion, respondent No.1 can consider the matter in light of  the<br \/>\ndetail  which  will  be  supplied  by  the petitioners.   In  respect<br \/>\n to  one  case,  where  it was decided  on  merits,  even  though<br \/>\nrespondent  No.1  can reconsider  the  matter  after  receiving the<br \/>\napplication from the  petitioner  and,  therefore,  according  to  my<br \/>\nopinion,  it  is  directed  to  the  respondent  No.1  to reconsider<br \/>\nthe  matter  in  light  of  the   application submitted  by  the<br \/>\npetitioners, after considering various decisions which will be<br \/>\nsupplied by  the  petitioners  to the   respondent   No.1   and<br \/>\nafter  giving  reasonable opportunity  to   the   respective<br \/>\nparties   and   pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within<br \/>\na period of  three  months  from the date of receiving the copy of<br \/>\nthe said order.  In view of  the  above  observation  and direction,<br \/>\n all   these   petitions   are   disposed  of accordingly.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>4.1\tThis<br \/>\nCourt in aforesaid order directed to respondent No.1 to re-consider<br \/>\nthe matter in light of application submitted by petitioner after<br \/>\nconsidering various decisions which will be supplied by petitioners<br \/>\nto respondent No.1 after giving reasonable opportunity to respective<br \/>\nparties. The aforesaid order though has been passed by this Court and<br \/>\nin pursuance to that on 18.5.2003, a request was made by petitioner<br \/>\nto re-consider the decision and also request was made to refer the<br \/>\ndispute for adjudication to respondent No.1. But no decision still<br \/>\nhas been taken by respondent No.1 though on 17..7.2005 again request<br \/>\nwas made by petitioner to respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIn<br \/>\nlight of this background, it is a duty of respondent No.1 to take<br \/>\nappropriate decision when this Court has directed to re-consider the<br \/>\nmatter as per order passed by this Court on 6.5.2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tTherefore,<br \/>\nit is directed to respondent No.1 to re-consider the decision dated<br \/>\n10.2.2003 without being influenced by earlier decision dated<br \/>\n10.2.2003 and decision which has been taken by respondent No.1 that<br \/>\nno supporting documents have been produced by petitioner, whether he<br \/>\nhas worked continuously for 240 days or not. These questions are not<br \/>\nwithin the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 to decide merits of the<br \/>\nmatter. In case of termination under Section 2A of I.D.Act,1947, the<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 must have to refer such dispute for adjudication to<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal, Central. The respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction<br \/>\nto decide merits of dispute raised by petitioner. The decision dated<br \/>\n10.2.2003 is a decision on merits \/ adjudication which is not within<br \/>\nthe jurisdiction of respondent No.1 and in case when dispute exists,<br \/>\nit is a duty of respondent No.1 to refer the same for adjudication to<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tlight of aforesaid observation made by this Court in identical case<br \/>\n\tit is directed to respondent no. 1 to reconsider decision dated<br \/>\n\t5\/5\/2009 while considering observation made by this Court in<br \/>\n\taforesaid decision and reconsider and reexamine matter.  The<br \/>\n\tquestion of delay is not come in way of petitioner for raising<br \/>\n\tindustrial dispute. There is no limitation is prescribed under<br \/>\n\tprovision of I. D. Act, 1947 which specified particular limitation<br \/>\n\tfor raising industrial dispute.  The decision of Apex Court in case<br \/>\n\tof  Ajayab Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing Cum<br \/>\n\tProcessing service Society Ltd and Anr reported I AIR 1999 SC 1351<br \/>\n\tand in case of  Sahji Vs. Executive<br \/>\n\tEngineer, PWD reported in 2005 (5) SCALE 261, are also<br \/>\n\trequired to be considered by respondent no. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>Let<br \/>\n\tthis aspect may be reconsider by respondent no. 1 along with<br \/>\n\trepresentation made by petitioner being review application dated<br \/>\n\t30\/3\/2010. Then to pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance<br \/>\n\twith law within a period of three months from date of receiving copy<br \/>\n\tof present order and communicate decision immediately to petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of above observations and directions, present petition is<br \/>\n\tdisposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(H.K.RATHOD,<br \/>\nJ)<\/p>\n<p>asma<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Naresh vs Desk on 28 April, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4864\/2011 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4864 of 2011 ========================================================= NARESH M PARMAR C\/O ASSOCIATION OF RAILWAY &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus DESK OFFICER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA &amp; [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-158311","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Naresh vs Desk on 28 April, 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\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Naresh vs Desk on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-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=\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-25T06:34:17+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Naresh vs Desk on 28 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-25T06:34:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1517,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Naresh vs Desk on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-25T06:34:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Naresh vs Desk on 28 April, 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":"Naresh vs Desk on 28 April, 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\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Naresh vs Desk on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-25T06:34:17+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Naresh vs Desk on 28 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-25T06:34:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011"},"wordCount":1517,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011","name":"Naresh vs Desk on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-25T06:34:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naresh-vs-desk-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Naresh vs Desk on 28 April, 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\/158311","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=158311"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158311\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158311"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158311"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158311"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}