{"id":169934,"date":"2010-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-18T16:25:40","modified_gmt":"2017-07-18T10:55:40","slug":"brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Brijlal vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd &amp; &#8230; on 9 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Brijlal vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd &amp; &#8230; on 9 February, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH  BILASPUR         \n\n WRIT PETITION NO 2978 OF 1994    \n\n Brijlal\n                                        ...Petitioners\n                          Versus\n\n Steel Authority of India Ltd &amp; Others\n                                         ...Respondents\n\n\n! Shri Amrito Das counsel for the petitioner\n\n^ Shri Shailendra Shukla counsel for the respondent No1\n\n CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J \n\n Dated: 09\/02\/2010\n\n: Judgement \n\n                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>        Delivered on this 09th day of February 2010<\/p>\n<p>  Writ Petition under Article 226\/227 of the Constitution of India<\/p>\n<p>1.   By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge<\/p>\n<p>     the legality and validity of the order dated 29-1-1994<\/p>\n<p>     (Annexure &#8211; P\/3) passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur,<\/p>\n<p>     in appeal Nos.152\/MPIR\/93 (Steel Authority of India Ltd.\n<\/p>\n<p>     v. Brijlal) &amp; 32\/MPIR\/94 (Brijlal v. Manaing Director,<\/p>\n<p>     Bhilai Steel Plant) whereby the appeal preferred by the<\/p>\n<p>     respondent No.1 was allowed, setting aside the order dated<\/p>\n<p>     9-11-1993 (sic) 29-4-1993, passed by the Labour Court,<\/p>\n<p>     Durg, in case No.8\/MPIR\/86 (Brijlal v. Manaing Director,<\/p>\n<p>     Bhilai Steel Plant) and consequently dismissed the appeal<\/p>\n<p>     of the petitioner.  The petitioner also seeks for issuance<\/p>\n<p>     of  a  direction to the respondent  No.1  for  his<\/p>\n<p>     reinstatement with full back wages from the date of his<\/p>\n<p>     termination i.e. 19-10-1985 till his retirement.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The facts, in nutshell, for adjudication of the case,<br \/>\nare that initially the petitioner entered into service on<br \/>\n22-7-1963.  According to the petitioner, on 19-10-1985 the<br \/>\npetitioner fell ill, thus, by communication, he intimated<br \/>\nhis employer about his illness.  The Doctor advised him to<br \/>\ntake bed rest up to 29-10-1985.  On 30-10-1985 when the<br \/>\npetitioner went to resume his duty it was informed to him<br \/>\nthat he was terminated from service by order dated 19-10-<br \/>\n1985 (Annexure &#8211; P\/1).\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   Being aggrieved by the termination order dated 19-10-<br \/>\n1985 the petitioner preferred a case before the Labour<br \/>\nCourt, Durg.  In the said case the respondent No.1 filed<br \/>\nits written statement, stating that the petitioner was a<br \/>\nregular absentee and remained absent from the service for<br \/>\n127 days during the period from October, 1983 to May, 1984<br \/>\nand again absented from the service for 196 days during<br \/>\nthe period from July, 1984 to April, 1985.  The Labour<br \/>\nCourt by order dated 29-4-1993 partly allowed the case of<br \/>\nthe petitioner and directed the respondent No.1 to<br \/>\nreinstate the petitioner in service without back wages.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   Thereagainst, the respondent No.1 as well as the<br \/>\npetitioner filed separate appeals before the Industrial<br \/>\nCourt. The respondent No. 1 filed appeal against the order<br \/>\nof reinstatement and the petitioner filed appeal against<br \/>\nthe denial of grant of back-wages, respectively.  The<br \/>\nIndustrial Court by order dated 29-1-1994 set aside the<br \/>\norder passed by the Labour Court and allowed the appeal of<br \/>\nthe respondent No.1\/employer and consequently, dismissed<br \/>\nthe appeal of the petitioner\/employee. Thus, this petition<br \/>\nfor reinstatement and back wages from the date of his<br \/>\ntermination till his actual date of retirement.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioner, would submit that during the complete service<br \/>\nperiod,  there was not a single occasion where the<br \/>\npetitioner was found involved in dereliction of duties,<br \/>\nexcept for the last year of service where he was unduly<br \/>\nconstrained to remain absent on account of his ill health.<br \/>\nAccording to the respondent No.1 the petitioner was served<br \/>\nwith a charge sheet on 14-5-1985.  The petitioner<br \/>\nsubmitted his reply and conditionally admitted the guilt<br \/>\nsetting out the reasons for the same.  Shri Das would next<br \/>\ncontend that admittedly, the petitioner remained<br \/>\nunauthorizedly absent, however, the petitioner has<br \/>\nsubmitted explanation before the enquiry officer which was<br \/>\nnot considered. The petitioner was not holding any<br \/>\nresponsible or vital position nor had he been absent<br \/>\nuninformed and on account of absence of the petitioner,<br \/>\nthe respondent No. 1\/employer has not suffered serious<br \/>\nprejudice and as such, the order of removal from service<br \/>\nis disproportionate and deserves to be set aside.  Shri<br \/>\nDas would further submit that the impugned order of<br \/>\ntermination was passed without affording proper<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without<br \/>\nfollowing due process of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   On the other hand, Shri Shailendra Shukla, learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would submit<br \/>\nthat the petitioner was a habitual absentee and he<br \/>\nremained on leave unauthorizedly for a long period.  The<br \/>\npetitioner has been terminated from the service after<br \/>\nfollowing due process of law.  Thus, the punishment of<br \/>\nremoval from service is just and proper.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   I have heard learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nparties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended<br \/>\nthereto.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   Indisputably, the petitioner remained absent for 127<br \/>\ndays from October, 1983 to May, 1984, which resulted into<br \/>\nimposition of minor penalty of reducing his basic pay by<br \/>\none stage from Rs. 787\/- to 769\/-.  Thereafter, he<br \/>\nremained unauthorizedly absent from July, 1984 to April,<br \/>\n1985 for 196 days. A show-cause-notice was issued to him<br \/>\nand during departmental enquiry, the petitioner admitted<br \/>\nhis guilt, thus, it was held that the petitioner remained<br \/>\nunauthorisedly absent without reasonable explanation which<br \/>\nresulted into removal from service.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   The Labour Court allowed the application of the<br \/>\npetitioner by order dated 29.04.1993 on the ground that<br \/>\nthe explanation submitted by the petitioner was not<br \/>\nconsidered by the enquiry officer, without disclosing the<br \/>\nfact asto what was the explanation and whether the<br \/>\nexplanation was reasonable and proper. The explanation, if<br \/>\nany, offered by the petitioner, was for the period from<br \/>\n19.10.1985 to 29.10.1985 only. In appeal preferred by the<br \/>\npetitioner against denial of back-wages, being Appeal No.<br \/>\n32\/MPIR\/94 and the appeal preferred by the respondent No.<br \/>\n1 being Appeal No. 152\/MPIR\/93 against the order of<br \/>\nreinstatement, respectively, the Industrial Court after<br \/>\nhaving considered the aspect of clear admission by the<br \/>\ndelinquent employee i.e. the petitioner, set aside the<br \/>\norder of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court and<br \/>\nallowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1\/employer<br \/>\non 29.01.1994. The parties have not produced any document<br \/>\nwith regard to explanation offered by the petitioner in<br \/>\nthe departmental enquiry. There is no dispute that the<br \/>\ndepartmental enquiry has found the petitioner absent<br \/>\nunauthorisedly for a long period.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  The petitioner was Feeder Attendant. It is informed<br \/>\nat the bar that Feeder Attendant is a very important post<br \/>\nfor production of the goods. The unauthorized absence of<br \/>\nthe petitioner has caused prejudice to the production.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  In Chairman cum <a href=\"\/doc\/752285\/\">Managing Director, V.S.P. &amp; Others v.<br \/>\nGoparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu1,<\/a> relied on by the<br \/>\npetitioner, the Supreme Court observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                 &#8220;16.  Indisputably, the  respondent<br \/>\n               was  a  habitual absentee. He in  his<br \/>\n               explanation, in answer to the charge-<br \/>\n               sheet  pleaded  guilty admitting  the<br \/>\n               charges.  In terms of Section  58  of<br \/>\n               the Evidence Act, charges having been<br \/>\n               admitted  were  not  required  to  be<br \/>\n               proved.  It was on that premise  that<br \/>\n               the  enquiry  proceeding was  closed.<br \/>\n               Before  the enquiry officer,  he  did<br \/>\n               not  submit  the explanation  of  his<br \/>\n               mother   being   ill.   He,   despite<br \/>\n               opportunities granted  to  report  to<br \/>\n               duty,  did  not do it. He  failed  to<br \/>\n               explain even his prior conduct.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                 21.  Once it is found that all  the<br \/>\n               procedural  requirements  have   been<br \/>\n               complied  with, the courts would  not<br \/>\n               ordinarily interfere with the quantum<br \/>\n               of   punishment   imposed   upon    a<br \/>\n               delinquent  employee.  The   superior<br \/>\n               courts  only in some cases may invoke<br \/>\n               the  doctrine of proportionality.  If<br \/>\n               the  decision of an employer is found<br \/>\n               to  be  within the legal  parameters,<br \/>\n               the jurisdiction would ordinarily not<br \/>\n               be invoked when the misconduct stands<br \/>\n               proved. <a href=\"\/doc\/686182\/\">(See Sangfroid Remedies  Ltd.<br \/>\n               v. Union of India.)<\/a>&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>12.  Further,  in <a href=\"\/doc\/1650517\/\">Mithilesh Singh v. Union of  India  &amp;<\/p>\n<p>Others2,<\/a> relied on by the petitioner, the Supreme Court<\/p>\n<p>     held that remaining absent without proper intimation to<\/p>\n<p>     the authorities may lead to order of removal from service.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.  Reliance of the petitioner on General Manager,<br \/>\nAppellate Authority Bank of India &amp; another v. Mohd.<br \/>\nNizamuddin3 , in support of his contention that the<br \/>\npetitioner was not holding any responsible post, therefore<br \/>\nhis absence has not caused any serious prejudice is not<br \/>\nrelevant to the case on hand, as admittedly, the<br \/>\npetitioner was a Feeder Attendant in Production Unit. If<br \/>\nthe Feeder Attendant remains absent, it may lead to loss<br \/>\nof production. Thus, the petitioner was holding a<br \/>\nresponsible post. Accordingly, the punishment of removal<br \/>\nfrom was not disproportionate.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.  Further, reliance of the petitioner on State of<br \/>\nRajasthan &amp; another v. Mohd. Ayub Naz4, where the question<br \/>\nunder consideration before the Supreme Court was that if a<br \/>\ngovernment servant willfully remains absent for a period<br \/>\nof about three years, whether has a right to receive<br \/>\nmonetary\/retiral benefits, the Supreme Court held that<br \/>\nsuch a person has no right to receive monetary\/retiral<br \/>\nbenefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.  In State of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others v. Hazarilal5,<\/p>\n<p>     relied on by the petitioner, the Supreme Court observed as<\/p>\n<p>     under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;7.  By reason of the said provision,<br \/>\n               thus, &#8220;the disciplinary authority has<br \/>\n               been   empowered  to   consider   the<br \/>\n               circumstances of the case  where  any<br \/>\n               penalty  is  imposed on a  government<br \/>\n               servant  on  the  ground  of  conduct<br \/>\n               which has led to his conviction on  a<br \/>\n               criminal charge&#8221;, but the same  would<br \/>\n               not  mean  that irrespective  of  the<br \/>\n               nature  of the case in which  he  was<br \/>\n               involved or the punishment which  has<br \/>\n               been  imposed upon him, an  order  of<br \/>\n               dismissal  must  be  passed.  Such  a<br \/>\n               construction, in our opinion, is  not<br \/>\n               warranted.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>16.  Having regard to the facts situation of the case and<\/p>\n<p>     in view of the various pronouncements as aforestated, it<\/p>\n<p>     cannot be held that the willful absence of the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>     has not caused any damage or loss to the respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The absence of 196 days from 1984 to 1985  was not the<\/p>\n<p>     first instance as even earlier also, the petitoner<\/p>\n<p>     remained absent for a period of 127 days from October,<\/p>\n<p>1983 to  May, 1984. Thus, the petitioner was a habitual<\/p>\n<p>     absentee. Some information to the employer does not grant<\/p>\n<p>     sanction to an employee to remain absent unauthorisedly,<\/p>\n<p>     without proper sanction of the employer. The Courts below<\/p>\n<p>     have not examined the fact of willful absence but on the<\/p>\n<p>     basis of documents and the facts produced before this<\/p>\n<p>     Court as well as before the Courts below, I have no<\/p>\n<p>     hesitation in holding that the petitioner remained<\/p>\n<p>     willfully unauthorisedly absent from service.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.  Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ<br \/>\npetition fails and is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.  There shall be no order asto costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              J U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Brijlal vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd &amp; &#8230; on 9 February, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO 2978 OF 1994 Brijlal &#8230;Petitioners Versus Steel Authority of India Ltd &amp; Others &#8230;Respondents ! Shri Amrito Das counsel for the petitioner ^ Shri Shailendra Shukla counsel for the respondent No1 [&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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-169934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Brijlal vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd &amp; ... on 9 February, 2010 - 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\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Brijlal vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd &amp; ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-18T10:55:40+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\\\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Brijlal vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd &amp; &#8230; on 9 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-18T10:55:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1644,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Brijlal vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd &amp; ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-18T10:55:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Brijlal vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd &amp; &#8230; on 9 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Brijlal vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd &amp; ... on 9 February, 2010 - 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\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Brijlal vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd &amp; ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-18T10:55:40+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\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Brijlal vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd &amp; &#8230; on 9 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-18T10:55:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010"},"wordCount":1644,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010","name":"Brijlal vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd &amp; ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-18T10:55:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijlal-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Brijlal vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd &amp; &#8230; on 9 February, 2010"}]},{"@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\/169934","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=169934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169934\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}