{"id":168549,"date":"2004-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004"},"modified":"2017-08-24T04:00:50","modified_gmt":"2017-08-23T22:30:50","slug":"the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"The Chairman vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Chairman vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED:01\/10\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\n\nWrit Petition No.1490 of 1997\n\n\nThe Chairman\nKarur Vysya Bank Limited\nKarur-639 002.                                          ...     Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Presiding Officer\n  Industrial Tribunal, Madras.\n\n2.The Workman rep.by the President\n  Tamil Nadu Bank Deposit\n  Collectors Union,\n  55 Armenian Street, Madras-600 001.   ...     Respondents\n\nPrayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling\nrecords of the first respondent in I.D.No.27 of 1985 and quash its award dated 2.8.1996.\n\nFor Petitioner ::      Mr.Ravindran\nFor Respondents::      Ms.Anna Mathew\n\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.27  of  19<br \/>\n85, directing  the petitioner\/Management to reinstate one Thiru.  Vaidyanathan<br \/>\nwith continuity of service and backwages at Rs.750\/- per month from  the  date<br \/>\nof  dismissal  till  the  said  Vaidyanathan assumes duty, on whose behalf the<br \/>\nsecond respondent\/Union raised the said I.D.,  the  petitioner\/Management  has<br \/>\npreferred the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   In  brief,  the  second respondent Union, on behalf of one Thiru.<br \/>\nVaidyanathan, who was working as Honey Bee Deposit Organiser  in  the  Alandur<br \/>\nBranch  of  the  petitioner bank, raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.27 of<br \/>\n1985 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes  Act,  questioning  the<br \/>\ntermination of service  of  the  said  Thiru.    Vaidyanathan.  The industrial<br \/>\ndispute was resisted by the Management on the ground that,<\/p>\n<p>(a)the Honey Bee Deposit Organisers, even though construed as a workman within<br \/>\nthe meaning of Section 2(6) of the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  they  are  not<br \/>\nregular employees and that the bank has no control over them; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)since  they  are  only employed as Commission Agents, the question of their<br \/>\nnon-employment  does  not  arise  in  a  strict   sense,   particularly   when<br \/>\nThiru.Vaidyanathan  has  abandoned  the service for a period of 10 months from<br \/>\nSeptember 1981 to July 1982, and therefore, the question of  wage,  much  less<br \/>\nback wages does not arise .\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.1.  The labour Court, in its award dated 2.8.1996, refused to accept<br \/>\nthe  contentions  of  the  Petitioner\/Management  and  held  that  even though<br \/>\nThiru.Vaidyanathan failed to act as  Honey  Bee  Deposit  Organiser  from  the<br \/>\nperiod September 1981 to July 1982, since he had explained in his letter dated<br \/>\n27.7.1982  that he was ill during that period, the petitioner\/Management ought<br \/>\nto have held an enquiry and  passed  an  order  before  holding  that  he  had<br \/>\nabandoned  the  service  and  therefore, directed the petitioner\/Management to<br \/>\nreinstate Thiru.Vaidyanathan with continuity of service and backwages.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.2.  That apart,  the  labour  Court,  based  on  the  award  of  the<br \/>\nIndustrial  Tribunal,  Hyderabad  in I.D.No.14\/80 dated 22.12.1988 between the<br \/>\n&#8220;WORKMEN OF SYNDICATE BANK &amp; 47 OTHER BANKS AND THE  MANAGEMENT  OF  SYNDICATE<br \/>\nBANK  &amp; 47 OTHER BANKS&#8221; in the case of Honey Bee Deposit Organisers, wherein a<br \/>\nminimum of Rs.750\/- per month was fixed as  wage  to  the  Honey  Bee  Deposit<br \/>\nOrganisers,  if  they  are able to raise a minimum deposit of Rs.7,500\/-, also<br \/>\nawarded a sum of Rs.750\/- per month as wage.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.1.  Mr.Ravindran, learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner\/Management,<br \/>\nreiterating  the  submissions  made before the Labour Court, submits that even<br \/>\nthough the Honey Bee Deposit Organisers are ought to be construed  as  workmen<br \/>\nwithin  the  meaning  of Section 2(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, they are<br \/>\nnot regular employees and when they abstain from duty or abandon the  service,<br \/>\nthe  question  of  non-employment  does not arise and hence the finding of the<br \/>\nlabour Court that Thiru.  Vaidyanathan suffered a non-employment in the  hands<br \/>\nof  the  petitioner\/  Management, is unsustainable in law and consequently the<br \/>\nawarding of reinstatement and backwages to the said  Thiru.Vaidyanathan,  when<br \/>\nthe question of non-employment itself does not arise, is perverse.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.2.   Placing  reliance on the decision reported in &#8220;<a href=\"\/doc\/900089\/\">HINDUSTAN MOTORS<br \/>\nLTD., V.  TAPAN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA AND ANOTHER<\/a>  (2002  (3)  L.L.N.767&#8243;  it  is<br \/>\ncontended  that  the impugned award suffers from non application of mind while<br \/>\nawarding the backwages, as it is a settled law that awarding of back wages  is<br \/>\nnot  a matter of course, as the labour Court is duty bound to consider whether<br \/>\nin the circumstances of the case on hand, the workman is entitled to backwages<br \/>\nor otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  Per contra, Ms.Anna Mathew,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\nsecond respondent contends that since the award has been passed purely finding<br \/>\nthat it  is  unreasonable  to  refuse employment to Thiru.  Vaidyanathan, even<br \/>\nwithout offering a reasonable opportunity to present his case, no interference<br \/>\nis called for in the impugned award.  It  is  further  argued  that  it  is  a<br \/>\nsettled  proposition  that  the  Honey Bee Deposit Organisers are construed as<br \/>\nworkmen within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act<br \/>\neven  though  they  are  working  as Commission Agents and their wage could be<br \/>\ndetermined, as held by the Apex Court in &#8216;<a href=\"\/doc\/1352846\/\">INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION V.  WORKMEN<br \/>\nOF SYNDICATE BANK AND OTHERS<\/a>; (2001) 3 S.C.C.36&#8243;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  I have given careful consideration  to  the  submissions  of  both<br \/>\nsides.  Upon the above rival contentions, the following two vital issues raise<br \/>\nfor consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Whether the non-employment of Thiru.Vaidyanathan is sustainable in law<br \/>\nand to what relief he is entitled to?\n<\/p>\n<p>        The Apex  Court  in &#8216;<a href=\"\/doc\/1352846\/\">INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION V.  WORKMEN OF SYNDICATE<br \/>\nBANK AND OTHERS<\/a>; (2001) 3 S.C.C.36&#8243;, has now declared that Honey  Bee  Deposit<br \/>\nOrganisers\/Collectors  of  the banks, although were not regular employees, are<br \/>\nworkmen within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act  and<br \/>\nthere  exists  a  master and servant relationship between the bank the deposit<br \/>\ncollectors\/organisers and the banks have control over  them  and  the  deposit<br \/>\ncollectors\/organisers are   accountable   to   the  bank.    The  Indian  Bank<br \/>\nAssociation&#8217;s case is a  case  which  arose  from  the  award  passed  by  the<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, which has been followed by the labour Court in<br \/>\narriving at  the back wages.  In the instant case, the amount awarded is based<br \/>\non the following admitted facts.\n<\/p>\n<p>i.Thiru.Vaidyanathan (the workman) was serving the petitioner  bank  as  Honey<br \/>\nBee Deposit Organiser;\n<\/p>\n<p>ii.He was absent from duty from September, 1981 to July, 1982;<br \/>\niii.He  was  not collecting any deposits during the period from September 1981<br \/>\nto July 1982 and therefore, he suffered a non-employment in the hands  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner bank; and<br \/>\niv.By his letter dated 27.7.1982, he submitted his explanation that he was not<br \/>\nwell during the said period of absence.\n<\/p>\n<p>v.The workman was not given a reasonable opportunity to present his case.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.2.   The  Apex Court, in &#8220;D.K.Yadav -vs- J.M.A.Industries Ltd., 1999<br \/>\n(3) SCC 259&#8221; has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8221;       8.  The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in every case, is<br \/>\nwhether  the  person  concerned  should  have  a  reasonable  opportunity   of<br \/>\npresenting  his  case  and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably<br \/>\nand impartially.  It is not so much to act judicially but is  to  act  fairly,<br \/>\nnamely  the  procedure  adopted  must  be  just,  fair  and  reasonable in the<br \/>\nparticular circumstances of the case.   In  other  words  application  of  the<br \/>\nprinciples  of natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends<br \/>\nto prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights  of  the<br \/>\nconcerned person.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   It  is  a  fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken<br \/>\nwhich will affect the right of any person without first being informed of  the<br \/>\ncase and  giving  him\/her  an opportunity of putting forward his\/her case.  An<br \/>\norder involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of<br \/>\nnatural justice.  In Mohinder Singh Gill v.  Chief Election Commissioner,  the<br \/>\nConstitution  Bench  held  that  &#8216;civil consequences&#8217; covers infraction of not<br \/>\nmerely property or personal right but of civil comprehensive connotation every<br \/>\nthing that affects a citizen in his civil liberties, material deprivations and<br \/>\nnonpecuniary damages.  In  its  comprehensive  connotation  every  thing  that<br \/>\naffects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence.  Black&#8217;s Law<br \/>\nDictionary,  4th  edn., page 1487 defined civil rights such as belong to every<br \/>\ncitizen of the state or country &#8230;.  they include &#8230;.    rights  capable  of<br \/>\nbeing  enforced  or  redressed  in  that  even  an  administrative order which<br \/>\ninvolves civil consequences must  be  made  consistently  with  the  rules  of<br \/>\nnatural justice.    The  person  concerned  must  be informed of the case, the<br \/>\nevidence in support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity  was<br \/>\ngiven  it  was  held  that  superannuation  was  in violation of principles of<br \/>\nnatural justice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>(emphasis supplied)<br \/>\n        6.3.  In the instant case, the labour Court  came  to  the  conclusion<br \/>\nthat  the  non-employment  is illegal purely on the ground that inspite of the<br \/>\nletter furnished by the workman, the Management failed to consider  the  same.<br \/>\nTherefore,  once  the  Honey Bee Deposit Organisers come within the meaning of<br \/>\nworkmen under Section 2(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act,  Thiru.Vaidyanathan<br \/>\nshould  not  be made to suffer nonemployment, without giving an opportunity to<br \/>\nexplain his case, which would otherwise be a violation of  the  principles  of<br \/>\nnatural justice, even assuming that he had abandoned the service, as contended<br \/>\nby the  Management.    Hence,  the non employment of Thiru.Vaidyanathan on the<br \/>\nground  that  he  has  abandoned  the  service  is  held  to  be  illegal  and<br \/>\nunjustified.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.1.   This  leads  for  the supplementary issue as to what relief the<br \/>\nworkman is entitled to ?\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.2.  The tribunal  relied  on  the  decision  reported  in  (2001)  3<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1352846\/\">S.C.C.36 (INDIAN  BANKS ASSOCIATION V.  WORKMEN OF SYNDICATE BANK AND OTHERS),<\/a><br \/>\nfor fixing  backwages  at  Rs.750\/-  per  month  for  the  Honey  Bee  Deposit<br \/>\nOrganisers  who  raise  a  minimum deposit of Rs.7500\/- per month, even though<br \/>\nthey are not regular employees.  But in the instant case, the workman suffered<br \/>\nnon-employment in violation of principles of natural justice.    However,  the<br \/>\nfact  remains  that  he  had  not raised any deposits during the period of his<br \/>\nnon-employment.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion  that  a  rate  of<br \/>\nRs.350\/-  per  month  instead  of  Rs.750\/-  per  month  during  the period of<br \/>\nnon-employment is fair and reasonable.  Accordingly, the impugned award stands<br \/>\nmodified to the effect that the workman Vaidyanathan shall be reinstated  with<br \/>\nbackwages   at   the  rate  of  Rs.350\/-  per  month  from  the  date  of  his<br \/>\nnon-employment till he is reinstated in service by  the  petitioner\/Management<br \/>\nand  he shall be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs.50,000\/- already deposited<br \/>\nto the credit of the I.D.No.27 of 1985 pursuant to the  interim  orders  dated<br \/>\n4.2.1997 in W.M.P.No.2493 of 19 97.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  The writ petition is allowed in part as stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>01.10.2004<br \/>\nIndex :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<br \/>\nKST.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Presiding Officer<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The President<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Bank Deposit<br \/>\nCollectors Union,<br \/>\n55 Armenian Street, Madras-600 001.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Chairman vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:01\/10\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN Writ Petition No.1490 of 1997 The Chairman Karur Vysya Bank Limited Karur-639 002. &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Madras. 2.The Workman rep.by the President Tamil [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168549","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Chairman vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2004 - 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\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Chairman vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-23T22:30:50+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Chairman vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-23T22:30:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1665,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004\",\"name\":\"The Chairman vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-23T22:30:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Chairman vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"The Chairman vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2004 - 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\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Chairman vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-23T22:30:50+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Chairman vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-23T22:30:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004"},"wordCount":1665,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004","name":"The Chairman vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-23T22:30:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-1-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Chairman vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2004"}]},{"@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\/168549","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=168549"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168549\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}