{"id":1650,"date":"2011-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011"},"modified":"2016-02-24T20:19:30","modified_gmt":"2016-02-24T14:49:30","slug":"agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Agricultural vs Bharatkumar on 27 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Agricultural vs Bharatkumar on 27 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\/2098\/2011\t 13\/ 13\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. 2098 of 2011\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 3963 of 2011\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nAGRICULTURAL\nPRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE THROUGH SECRETARY - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nBHARATKUMAR\nDHIRAJLAL SANGHVI - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nVC VAGHELA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR GM JOSHI for Respondent(s) :\n1, \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: 27\/04\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned advocate Mr. VC Vaghela on behalf of petitioner, learned
\n\tadvocate Mr. GM Joshi appearing for respondents on caveat in both
\n\tpetitions.\n<\/p>\n
Rule.\n<\/p>\n
\t Learned advocate Mr. Joshi waives service of notice of Rule on
\n\tbehalf of respondent workmen.  With consent of both learned
\n\tadvocates, present petitions are taken up for final hearing today.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tSCA no. 2098\/2011, petitioner Market Committee has challenged award
\n\tpassed by Labour Court, Amreli in reference LCA no. 227\/2005 dated
\n\t6\/1\/2011.  The Labour Court, Amreli has granted Rs. 30,000\/- in lieu
\n\tof reinstatement and back wages of interim period being a
\n\tcompensation in favour of respondent workman.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tbrief facts of SCA no. 2098\/2011 is that respondent workman was
\n\tworking as clerk w.e.f. 10\/10\/2001 and his salary was Rs. 2,340\/-.
\n\tHis service was terminated on 30\/4\/2005.  At that occasion, section
\n\t25 F of I. D. Act, 1946 is not followed by petitioner and juniors
\n\twere remained continued and subsequently new recruitment has been
\n\tmade. Therefore, demand notice was served by respondent workman on
\n\t14\/5\/2005 to petitioner.  Against statement of claim, written
\n\tstatement filed by petitioner vide exh 11 and raising contention by
\n\tpetitioner before Labour Court that respondent workman was not an
\n\temployee of petitioner Market Committee.  The respondent was working
\n\tas “Dadia” – daily wager and monthly wages was paid to
\n\thim.  The amount has been sent through cheque, which was not
\n\taccepted by respondent.  Vide exh 15 workman was examined before
\n\tLabour court. He has produced documentary evidence vide exh 16 to\n<\/p>\n
\t19.  Exh. 16 is demand notice and exh 17 and 18 is Registered AD
\n\tacknowledgment receipt received by respondent and exh 19 is reply
\n\tgiven by petitioner.  Vide exh 42, Shri Sureshbhai Premjibhai Patel
\n\twas examined and documentary evidence was produced by petitioner exh
\n\t44 to 50. Exh 44 is termination order dated 30\/4\/2005 which was sent
\n\tto respondent by petitioner exh 45 has been refused by respondent.
\n\tExh 49 is copy of resolution dated 31\/12\/2009 also produced and vide
\n\texh 50 letter dated 18\/2\/2002 of Director of Agricultural Market
\n\tCommittee, Gandhinagar is produced on record.\n<\/p>\n
Similarly,
\n\tin SCA no. 3963\/2011, Labour Court in reference no. 29\/2005 exh 52
\n\thas granted Rs. 30,000\/- being compensation in lieu of reinstatement
\n\tand back wages of interim period on 10\/1\/2011 in favour of workman
\n\tviz. Shri Jaisukhbhai Shayamjibhai  Limbani.  In present case,
\n\tworkman was appointed on 15\/10\/2002 receiving last drawn salary of
\n\tRs. 2,340\/- and his service was also terminated on 30\/4\/2005.  The
\n\tdemand notice was sent by respondent to petitioner on 14\/5\/2005.
\n\tThe petitioner has filed reply vide exh 11.  In present case also
\n\tsame contention has been raised by workman that he was remained in
\n\tservice upto period of more than three years and he has completed
\n\t240 days continuous service.  Even though, section 25 F of I. D. Act
\n\tis not followed by petitioner. The workman was examined vide exh 15
\n\tbefore Labour Court and documents are produced vide exh 16 to 19 and
\n\ton behalf of petitioner exh 42 Sureshbhai Premjibhai Patel was
\n\texamined.  Thereafter, documents have been produced by petitioner
\n\texh 44 to 50 including order of termination dated 30\/4\/2005 vide exh\n<\/p>\n
\t44.  The matter was heard by Labour Court and considering evidence,
\n\twhich are on record. The Labour Court has thought it fit that
\n\tinstead of granting reinstatement in favour of respondent workman as
\n\the  was daily wager working w.e.f. 15\/10\/2002 and not appointed by
\n\tregular procedure of recruitment rules.  Therefore, after
\n\tconsidering total length of service three years and two months and
\n\tdecision of Apex Court in case of Incharge Officer and Anr Vs.
\n\tShankar Shetty reported in 2010 (9) SCC 126, compensation of Rs.
\n\t30,000\/- has been awarded in favour of workman in lieu of
\n\treinstatement and back wages of interim period.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tLabour Court has heard matter and considering submission made by
\n\tboth learned advocates.  Thereafter, issues have been framed in para
\n\t12 and answer has been given in para 13.  According to evidence of
\n\tworkman exh 15 he was appointed on 10\/10\/2001 in post of clerk and
\n\this service was terminated on 30\/4\/2005 and his last wages was Rs.
\n\t2,340\/-.  He was not given presence card, payslip and even not given
\n\tappointment order by employer.  At the time of termination his
\n\tservice,  junior workman viz Dilipbhai Vora was remained continued
\n\tin service and subsequently fresh recruitment has been made by
\n\tpetitioner.  Therefore, Section 25 F of I. D. Act has been violated.
\n\tHe has made efforts to find out job but he was not able to get job.
\n\tIn cross examination, workman admitted that he was not appointed by
\n\tfollowing recruitment procedure  and he was working as daily wager.
\n\tThere was no advertisement issued by petitioner for post of clerk.
\n\tThe Secretary, Shri Sureshbhai Premjibhai Patel was examined on
\n\tbehalf of petitioner.  According to his evidence, workman was
\n\tworking on seasonal basis as Dadia and at the end of month, wages
\n\twas paid to workman and according to necessity of work, daily wagers
\n\tare appointed by petitioner.  Exh 44 being a termination order
\n\tproduced on record and notice pay which was sent to workman, was
\n\trefused by workman also produced on record.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tlight of aforesaid evidence on record and considering facts that
\n\tworkmen were remained continued in service from 2001 to 2005 and
\n\tsection 25 F of I. D. Act has not been followed by petitioner.  The
\n\tLabour Court has come to conclusion that looking to age of workmen
\n\tand duration of service about more than three years and six months.
\n\tTherefore, after considering decision of Apex Court in case of
\n\tIncharge Officer and Ors Vs. Shankar Shetty reported in 2010 (9) SCC
\n\t126, Labour Court has considered that services of workmen were
\n\tterminated on 30\/4\/2005. The evidence were given by workmen in the
\n\tyear 2008 last drawn salary was Rs. 2,340\/-.  Therefore, lumpsum
\n\tamount has been fixed by Labour Court in lieu of reinstatement and
\n\tback wages which comes to Rs. 30,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave considered submissions made by both learned advocates and
\n\tconsidering age of workmen. They were working as Dadia on daily wage
\n\tbasis.  Recently Apex Court has considered such type of cases where
\n\tdaily wager’s service was terminated, for non compliance of section
\n\t25 F, reasonable compensation has been worked out.  For that in case
\n\tof  Incharge Officer and Anr Vs. Shankar Shetty reported in
\n\t2010 (9) SCC 126,  relevant observation made in para 2 to 7
\n\tare quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.
\n\tShould an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case
\n\twhere the engagement of a daily wager has been brought to end in
\n\tviolation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for
\n\tshort `ID Act’)? The course of decisions of this Court in recent
\n\tyears has been uniform on the above question.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIn
\n\tthe case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing
\n\tBoard and Anr.<\/a> (2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545,
\n\tdelivering the judgment of this Court, one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.)
\n\tnoticed some of the recent decisions of this Court – namely, U.P.
\n\tState Brassware Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey<\/a>
\n\t(2006) 1 SCC 479 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 250; Uttranchal Forest
\n\tDevelopment Corporation vs. M.C. Joshi<\/a> (2007) 9 SCC 353 : (2007) 2
\n\tSCC (L&S) 813 ; State of M.P. & Ors. v. Lalit Kumar Verma<\/a>
\n\t(2007) 1 SCC 575 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 504; Madhya Pradesh Admn
\n\tv. Tribhuban<\/a>   (2007) 9 SCC 748: (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 264; Sita
\n\tRam & Ors. v. Motil Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute<\/a>
\n\t(2008) 5 SCC 75 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 71; Jaipur Development
\n\tAuthority v. Ramasahai & Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 684 :(2007) 1 SCC
\n\t(L&S) 518; Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok
\n\tKumar & Anr.<\/a>   (2008) 4 SCC 261 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1016
\n\tand Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula & Anr.<\/a> (2008) 1
\n\tSCC 575 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 239 and stated as follows: (Para 7
\n\t& 14)<\/p>\n
“7.\tIt
\n\t\tis true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many
\n\t\tdecisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of
\n\t\tan employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement
\n\t\twith full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent
\n\t\tpast, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long
\n\t\tline of cases, this Court has consistently          taken the view
\n\t\tthat relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not
\n\t\tautomatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation
\n\t\teven though the termination of an employee is in contravention of
\n\t\tthe prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has
\n\t\tbeen held to meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIt
\n\twould be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time,
\n\tthis Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment
\n\tpassed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an
\n\taward of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed.
\n\tThe award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the
\n\tworkman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date
\n\tof termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be
\n\tproper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This
\n\tCourt has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a
\n\tpost and a permanent  employee”.\n<\/p>\n
4.
\n\tJagbir Singh1 has been applied very recently in the case of Senior
\n\tSuperintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal &
\n\tOrs.<\/a> (2008) 1 SCC 575 wherein this Court stated:\n<\/p>\n
“In
\n\tview of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen
\n\twere engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked
\n\thardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to
\n\tthem cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary
\n\tcompensation would subserve the ends of justice”.\n<\/p>\n
5.Shankar
\n\tShetty the respondent was initially engaged as daily wager by the
\n\tappellants in 1978. He worked for 57 days in that year. The
\n\trespondent had also worked for 316= days in 1979, 335= days in 1980,
\n\t242= days in 1981, 33= days in 1982, 10= days in 1983, 103 days in
\n\t1984 and 50 days in 1985. According to him he was terminated from
\n\tservice on September 6, 1985 without following the procedure
\n\tprescribed   in Section 25 F of the ID Act . He raised industrial
\n\tdispute relating to his retrenchment which was referred for
\n\tadjudication to the Labour Court, Mysore but later on the dispute
\n\twas transferred to the Labour Court, Chickmagalur. The Labour Court,
\n\tChickmagalur by its award on December 21, 1994 rejected the
\n\trespondent’s claim. The Labour Court held that Section 25 F of the
\n\tID Act was not attracted since the workman failed to prove that he
\n\thad worked continuously for 240 days in the calendar year preceding
\n\this termination on September 6, 1985.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\n\trespondent challenged the award passed by the Labour Court by filing
\n\ta writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.       The Single
\n\tJudge of the High Court  overturned the finding of the Labour Court
\n\tabout non-applicability of Section 25 F and held that Section 25 F
\n\tof the ID Act was attracted and the procedure provided therein
\n\thaving not been followed, the termination of respondent (petitioner
\n\ttherein) was illegal. The Single Judge, accordingly, vide his
\n\tjudgment and order dated August 13, 2001   directed reinstatement of
\n\tthe respondent into service but without back wages and continuity of
\n\tservice. The present appellants challenged the judgment and order of
\n\tthe Single Judge in writ appeal before Division Bench but without
\n\tany success. On December 9, 2004, the writ appeal preferred by the
\n\tpresent appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tWe
\n\tthink that if the principles stated in Jagbir Singh1 and the
\n\tdecisions of this Court referred to therein are kept in mind, it
\n\twill be found that the High Court erred in granting relief of
\n\treinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was engaged as daily
\n\twager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 years
\n\tintermittently upto September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a
\n\tcase such as the present one, it appears to us that relief of
\n\treinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation
\n\twould meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion, the
\n\tcompensation of Rs. 1,00,000\/- (Rupees Onc lac) in lieu of
\n\treinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable. We order
\n\taccordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today
\n\tfailing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per
\n\tcent per annum.”\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate Mr. Vaghela has also relied upon one decision of this Court
\n\tin SCA no. 8121\/2010 decided on 28\/12\/2010 (CO: Honourable Mr.
\n\tJustice, K. A. Puj) in similar circumstances, following observations
\n\tmade in para 18 to 22, which are quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t18.
\n\tHaving heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and
\n\thaving considered their rival submissions in light of the impugned
\n\tawards passed by the Industrial Tribunal as well as Labour Court and
\n\thaving further considered the authorities cited before the Court,
\n\tthe Court is of the view that the Industrial Tribunal has clearly
\n\terred in issuing directions for regularization of the services of
\n\tthe respondent workman. It is settled position in law and in number
\n\tof decisions, this Court as well as Apex Court have held that the
\n\tCourt has no power to issue direction for regularization of the
\n\tservice of the workman. The Court cannot create any new post, which
\n\tis not there. The issuance of direction of regularization of the
\n\trespondent workman in the present case, amounts to creation of new
\n\tpost, which is barred under the law.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.\tThe
\n\tground of challenge against termination raised by Mr. Vaghela has
\n\talso no substance. The respondent workman was wireman and he was not
\n\ton sanctioned post. The Director of Municipalities has specifically
\n\tissued direction not to engage daily wagers more than 10% of the
\n\tpermanent employees. The respondent workman, therefore, cannot be
\n\tmade permanent. In that view of the matter award passed by the
\n\tTribunal issuing direction to the petitioner Nagar Palika to make
\n\tthe respondent workman permanent and to pay him pay-scale is quashed
\n\tand set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.\tSo
\n\tfar as award passed by the Labour Court is concerned, it is true
\n\tthat services of the respondent workman were terminated on 5.5.2001.
\n\tAt the time of termination of his services provisions of Section 25F
\n\thave not been complied with and he was neither issued notice nor
\n\tpaid notice pay or retrenchment compensation. However, the Court
\n\thas, of late, taken the
\n\tdecisions that when the services of the respondent workmen are not
\n\tby way of regular mode, their initial appointments are not in
\n\taccordance with law and it is by way of back door entry. If they
\n\thave got the employment in an establishment in this manner, in that
\n\tcase the provisions of Section 25F are not required to be complied
\n\twith. At the most in such cases the concerned workman is entitled to
\n\tsome reasonable compensation. Reliance is placed before the Court on
\n\tthe decision of the Apex Court in the case of  Senior
\n\tSuperintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal
\n\tand others, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 773,
\n\twherein it is held that it has been consistently held by the Supreme
\n\tCourt that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not
\n\tautomatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal
\n\tor is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary
\n\tcompensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of
\n\tsuch nature may be appropriate.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Court further held that in view of the aforesaid legal position
\n\tand the  fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers for
\n\tabout 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief
\n\tof reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be
\n\tjustified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends
\n\tof justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.\tThe
\n\tlearned Single Judge of this Court in the case of  Amreli
\n\tMunicipality Vs. Timaniya Maganbhai Gordhanbhai (Special Civil
\n\tApplication No.10712 of 2010 decided on 12.10.2010)
\n\thas taken the view that in case of daily wager, order of
\n\treinstatement and back wages cannot be passed and in case if it is
\n\tfound that there was breach of Section 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the
\n\tIndustrial Disputes Act, the concerned workman can be compensated by
\n\tway of lump-sum monetary compensation. The Court has accordingly
\n\tdirected the petitioner Nagar Palika in that case to pay an amount
\n\tof Rs.40,000\/- to the respondent workman by way of
\n\tlump-sum monetary compensation within the period of eight weeks from
\n\tthe date of said decision.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.
\n\tConsidering the above legal position and facts of the present case,
\n\tthe Court is of the view that award passed by the Labour Court of
\n\treinstatement with 50% back wages is required to be modified by
\n\tawarding compensation of Rs.75,000\/- to the respondent workman which
\n\tshall be paid within two months from today. It is made clear that
\n\tacceptance of this amount by the respondent workman would be
\n\tconsidered as the acceptance of the decision by the respondent
\n\tworkman.”\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tsimilar view is taken by this Court in reported decision i.e. 2011
\n\t(1) CLR 315 and 2011 (1) CLR 862 (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice K.
\n\tA. Puj).\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tlight of this observation made by this Court as well as Apex Court
\n\tin case of Shankar Shetty as referred above.  The award passed by
\n\tLabour Court, Amreli giving compensation in lieu of reinstatement
\n\tand back wages of interim period is considered to be reasonable,
\n\tlegal and valid.\n<\/p>\n
However,
\n\taccording to my opinion, compensation which has been worked out by
\n\tLabour Court, Amreli can not consider to be adequate and reasonable.
\n\t For that amount of compensation is reasonably enhanced from Rs.
\n\t30,000\/- to Rs. 50,000\/- which will meet end of justice between
\n\tparties.  Therefore, award passed by Labour Court, Amreli in both
\n\treferences being LCA no. 27\/2005 exh 52 and 29\/2005 exh 52 is
\n\tmodified to the effect that instead of paying Rs. 30,000\/-
\n\tcompensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages of interim
\n\tperiod it should be paid Rs. 50,000\/- by petitioner to workmen.  The
\n\tsaid amount of Rs. 50,000\/- is required to be paid by petitioner in
\n\tfavour of both respondent workmen within a period of one month from
\n\tdate of receiving copy of present order.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly,
\n\taward in question is modified to the aforesaid extent.  Rule is made
\n\tabsolute.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(H.K.RATHOD,
\nJ)<\/p>\n
asma<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Agricultural vs Bharatkumar on 27 April, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2098\/2011 13\/ 13 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2098 of 2011 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3963 of 2011 ========================================================= AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE THROUGH SECRETARY – Petitioner(s) […]<\/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-1650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAgricultural vs Bharatkumar on 27 April, 2011 - 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\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Agricultural vs Bharatkumar on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-24T14:49:30+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Agricultural vs Bharatkumar on 27 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-24T14:49:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2933,\"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\\\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Agricultural vs Bharatkumar on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-24T14:49:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Agricultural vs Bharatkumar on 27 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":"Agricultural vs Bharatkumar on 27 April, 2011 - 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\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Agricultural vs Bharatkumar on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-24T14:49:30+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Agricultural vs Bharatkumar on 27 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-24T14:49:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011"},"wordCount":2933,"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\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011","name":"Agricultural vs Bharatkumar on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-24T14:49:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agricultural-vs-bharatkumar-on-27-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Agricultural vs Bharatkumar on 27 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\/1650","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=1650"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1650\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}