{"id":170786,"date":"2003-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003"},"modified":"2017-01-14T03:51:25","modified_gmt":"2017-01-13T22:21:25","slug":"arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"Arjun Lal, Satish Kumar And &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Industrial &#8230; on 5 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Arjun Lal, Satish Kumar And &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Industrial &#8230; on 5 February, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M S Gill<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M S Gill<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Mehtab S. Gill, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. By this common judgment, I shall be disposing<br \/>\nof both these Civil Writ Petition Nos. 18127 of 1994 and<br \/>\n1201 of 1995 as the questions of facts and law involved<br \/>\ntherein are identical in nature. However, for the sake of<br \/>\nconvenience, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ<br \/>\nPetition No. 1201 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The petitioners have prayed for the issuance of<br \/>\na writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing award<br \/>\ndated September 29, 1994 (Annexure P-8) passed by the<br \/>\nPresiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh<br \/>\n(respondent No. 1).\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The petitioners have averred that respondent<br \/>\nNos. 2 to 5 were appointed as Peons\/Guards\/Sweepers on<br \/>\nSeptember 30, 1985 by the Market Committee, Guru Harsahai,<br \/>\ndistrict Ferozepur without inviting applications through<br \/>\nan advertisement in the Press and without any eligible<br \/>\ncandidate being called from the Employment Exchange. The<br \/>\nAdministrator, Market Committee, Guru Harsahai district<br \/>\nFerozepur, after 72 days of the employment of respondent<br \/>\nNos. 2 to 5, on seeing that, the appointments of these<br \/>\nrespondents were not according to the rules and<br \/>\nregulations framed by the Board, terminated the services<br \/>\nof respondent Nos. 2 to 5 vide his order dated December<br \/>\n10, 1985 (Annexure P-1).\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The Administrator, Market Committee, Guru<br \/>\nHarsahai, district Ferozepur, issued an advertisement<br \/>\n(Annexure P-2) in the Daily &#8220;Charhdi Kalan&#8221; newspaper for<br \/>\nthe recruitment of Peons and Chowkidars. A request was<br \/>\nalso sent to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring the<br \/>\nnames of the candidates for the said posts.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 along with others<br \/>\napplied for the job and appeared in the interview held on<br \/>\nJune 2, 1986. Respondent Nos. 6 to 7 were appointed as<br \/>\nPeons on June 2, 1986 and respondent No. 8 as Chowkidar with<br \/>\neffect from January 9, 1987. A copy of the appointment<br \/>\nletter dated June 2, 1986 in respect of Arjun Lal<br \/>\n(respondent No. 6) is annexed with the petition as Annexure<br \/>\nP-3.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 challenged the<br \/>\ntermination order dated December 10, 1985 and raised an<br \/>\nindustrial dispute. The Labour Court, Bhatinda vide its<br \/>\naward dated March 7, 1988 (Annexure P-4) upheld the<br \/>\ntermination order issued against respondent Nos. 2 to 5.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 served another demand<br \/>\nnotice upon the petitioners on January 3, 1990 on the<br \/>\nground that when respondent Nos. 6 to 8 were appointed,<br \/>\nthey were not given an opportunity of re-employment and<br \/>\nthus, the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as &#8220;the Act&#8221;) were<br \/>\nviolated. The Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh (respondent<br \/>\nNo. 1) vide its ex parte award dated September 1, 1992 gave<br \/>\ndirections that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 be re-employed on<br \/>\nthe same posts.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. Civil Writ Petition No. 16700 of 1992 was filed<br \/>\nby the petitioners before this Hon&#8217;ble Court. This Court<br \/>\nset aside the ex parte award and the case was remanded to<br \/>\nthe Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh for fresh<br \/>\nadjudication.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. The Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh (respondent<br \/>\nNo. 1) gave a fresh award dated September 29, 1994 (Annexure<br \/>\nP-8). Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were reinstated and the<br \/>\nMarket Committee, Guru Harsahai (petitioner No. 2) was<br \/>\ndirected to re-employ respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Industrial<br \/>\nTribunal further directed that respondent Nos. 2 to 5<br \/>\nwill be deemed to be in the employment of the petitioners<br \/>\nwith effect from the date of retrenchment of their<br \/>\nservice, i.e., December 10, 1985. Further, respondent Nos.<br \/>\n2 to 5 were awarded full back wages.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10.  Notice of motion was issued.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. Written statement were filed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 has<br \/>\nstated that vide Resolution No. 5 dated October 1, 1985<br \/>\n(Annexure R-1), it was unanimously resolved that<br \/>\nrespondent Nos. 2 to 5 be employed as Peons and Chowkidars.<br \/>\nFurther, in the said resolution, it was resolved that the<br \/>\nappointments be made after making local publicity by the<br \/>\nMarket Committee. Learned counsel has further contended<br \/>\nthat the local publicity was made and only after that,<br \/>\nrespondent Nos. 2 to 5 were given appointments.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated,<br \/>\nthat as no advertisement was made, nor was any requisition<br \/>\nsent to the Employment Exchange, therefore, the<br \/>\nappointments of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were illegal and<br \/>\nthus, they could not be kept in service. Learned counsel<br \/>\nhas further contended that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have<br \/>\nnot completed 240 days of their service. The first award<br \/>\ndated March 7, 1988 has become final and thus, respondent<br \/>\nNos. 2 to 5 could not have filed their claim statements<br \/>\nnor was the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh (respondent<br \/>\nNo. 1), while passing the second award dated September<br \/>\n29, 1994 (Annexure P-8) within its rights to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. Learned counsel, Shri Sumeet Mahajan, appearing<br \/>\nfor respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 has stated that as respondent<br \/>\nNos. 6, 7 and 8 were appointed regularly and have been<br \/>\nserving the department for the last 17 years, now<br \/>\nterminating their services, would be a violation of these<br \/>\nrights under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>I have heard the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. The services of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were<br \/>\nterminated on December 10, 1985 by an order of the Labour<br \/>\nCourt; respondent Nos. 6 to 8 were appointed on June<br \/>\n2, 1986 and January 9, 1987. Demand notice, for seeking<br \/>\nre-employment under Section 25-H of the Act, put forward<br \/>\nby respondent Nos. 2 to 5, was served upon the<br \/>\npetitioners on January 3, 1990. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5<br \/>\ncould not take any advantage of the provisions of Section<br \/>\n25-H of the Act because at the time when they raised their<br \/>\nfirst demand and issued notice, respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8<br \/>\nwere not in the services of petitioner No. 2 and 8. It is<br \/>\nonly after respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were given service on<br \/>\nJune 2, 1986 and January 9, 1987 did the cause arise for<br \/>\nrespondent Nos. 2 to 5 to serve demand notice under<br \/>\nSection 25-H of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> 16. Going through resolution No. 5 dated October&#8217;<br \/>\n1, 1985 (Annexure R-1), it comes out that it is only after<br \/>\ndue publicity that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were given<br \/>\nappointments.\n<\/p>\n<p> 17. The Management witness, namely, Shri Manjit<br \/>\nSingh, Secretary, who came into the witness box as MW1,<br \/>\nwhose statement is annexed as Annexure R-3, has stated<br \/>\nthat when fresh appointments of respondent Nos. 6 to 8<br \/>\nwere made, no registered letters were sent to respondent<br \/>\nNos. 2 to 5. He has further stated that this was not<br \/>\ndone because it was not required.\n<\/p>\n<p> 18. Going through the statement of this witness,<br \/>\none can come to the conclusion that his reply has been<br \/>\nevasive.\n<\/p>\n<p> 19. Appointment letters (Annexure P-1), P-3 and<br \/>\nR-5) were issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Appointment<br \/>\nletter Annexure R-5 is signed by the Chairman, Market<br \/>\nCommittee, Guru Har Sahai and appointments to the posts<br \/>\nare on regular basis. This is one of the appointment<br \/>\nletters (Annexure R-5), which was sent to Harish Kumar,<br \/>\nrespondent No. 3 and other appointment letters, which were<br \/>\nsent to respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5, are of similar nature.\n<\/p>\n<p> 20. No fraud was committed on behalf of respondent<br \/>\nNos. 2 to 5 to get employment. If there was any laxity,<br \/>\nit was on the part of the authorities for which respondent<br \/>\nNos. 2 to 5 cannot be penalised. The provisions of<br \/>\nSection 25-H are reproduced as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.-<br \/>\nWhere any workmen are retrenched, and the<br \/>\nemployer proposes to take into his employ any<br \/>\npersons, he shall, in such manner as may be<br \/>\nprescribed, give an opportunity (to the<br \/>\nretrenched workmen who are citizens of India to<br \/>\noffer themselves for re-employment, and such<br \/>\nretrenched workmen) who offer themselves for<br \/>\nre-employment shall have preference over other<br \/>\npersons.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 21. The provisions of Section 25-H of the Act, as<br \/>\nquoted above, clearly envisage that respondent Nos. 2 to<br \/>\n5 should have been given due notice whether they went to<br \/>\nget employment or not. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have been<br \/>\nwrongly and illegally retrenched from service under the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> 22. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 8 has<br \/>\ndrawn my attention to a judgment of this Court rendered in<br \/>\nthe case of  Karnal Central Co-operation Bank Ltd.<br \/>\n(through its Managing Director), Karnal v. Industrial<br \/>\nTribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and Ors., 1994 (1)<br \/>\nL.L.N. 233, wherein the reference was declined on the<br \/>\nground of delay. Subsequently, another reference was<br \/>\nmade. It was held that the reference is bad. This<br \/>\njudgment does not apply to the case in hand. In the<br \/>\ninstant case, the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act<br \/>\ncould not have been agitated by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 at<br \/>\nthe time when the first reference was made because at that<br \/>\ntime respondent Nos. 6 to 8 had not been given employment<br \/>\nby the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p> 23. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn<br \/>\nmy attention to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court<br \/>\nrendered in the case of  Satnam Singh v. Presiding<br \/>\nOfficer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and Ors., 2001 (3) R.S.J.<br \/>\n90, wherein full back wages were not granted to the<br \/>\nworkman and they were awarded from the date of the demand<br \/>\nnotice.\n<\/p>\n<p> 24. Learned counsel for the respondents has further<br \/>\ndrawn my attention to a judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\nCourt rendered in the case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/1351401\/\">Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and<br \/>\nOrs. v. State of Bihar and Ors.,<\/a> 1997 (3)<br \/>\nR.S.J. 298. The fats of the case, as cited above, were<br \/>\nthat the services of the petitioners were terminated as<br \/>\nthey were not appointed according to the rules. The<br \/>\npetitioners were engaged on the basis of need of work on<br \/>\ndaily wages. This judgment can be distinguished on facts<br \/>\nas, in the case in hand, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were<br \/>\nappointed permanently and were not on daily wages.\n<\/p>\n<p> 25. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 has<br \/>\nstated that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are ready to forego<br \/>\n50% of the back wages from the date of demand notice.\n<\/p>\n<p> 26. The petitioners are directed to reinstate<br \/>\nrespondent Nos. 2 to 5 with 50% back wages from the date<br \/>\nof demand notice. The petitioners are further directed to<br \/>\ngive employment to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 where suitably<br \/>\nrequired. As respondent Nos. 6 to 8 have served the<br \/>\npetitioners for the last 17 years, now terminating their<br \/>\nservices would be a very harsh step. The petitioners are<br \/>\nfurther directed to keep respondent Nos. 6 to 8 in<br \/>\nemployment and adjust them on a post wherever they feel,<br \/>\nit is suitable.\n<\/p>\n<p> 27. I do not find any infirmity in the award dated<br \/>\nSeptember 29, 1994 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Presiding<br \/>\nOfficer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh. Award<br \/>\nis modified to the extent that employment to respondent<br \/>\nNos. 6, 7 and 8 shall not be disturbed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 28. Both these writ petitions are disposed of in<br \/>\nthe manner indicated above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court Arjun Lal, Satish Kumar And &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Industrial &#8230; on 5 February, 2003 Author: M S Gill Bench: M S Gill JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J. 1. By this common judgment, I shall be disposing of both these Civil Writ Petition Nos. 18127 of 1994 and 1201 of 1995 as [&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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-170786","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Arjun Lal, Satish Kumar And ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 5 February, 2003 - 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\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arjun Lal, Satish Kumar And ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 5 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-13T22:21:25+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\\\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arjun Lal, Satish Kumar And &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Industrial &#8230; on 5 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-13T22:21:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1668,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003\",\"name\":\"Arjun Lal, Satish Kumar And ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 5 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-13T22:21:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arjun Lal, Satish Kumar And &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Industrial &#8230; on 5 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Arjun Lal, Satish Kumar And ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 5 February, 2003 - 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\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arjun Lal, Satish Kumar And ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 5 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-13T22:21:25+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\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arjun Lal, Satish Kumar And &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Industrial &#8230; on 5 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-13T22:21:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003"},"wordCount":1668,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003","name":"Arjun Lal, Satish Kumar And ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 5 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-13T22:21:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-lal-satish-kumar-and-vs-presiding-officer-industrial-on-5-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arjun Lal, Satish Kumar And &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Industrial &#8230; on 5 February, 2003"}]},{"@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\/170786","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=170786"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170786\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}