{"id":173324,"date":"2000-10-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-10-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000"},"modified":"2016-11-16T13:13:04","modified_gmt":"2016-11-16T07:43:04","slug":"punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000","title":{"rendered":"Punjab State Civil Supplies &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, &#8230; on 10 October, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Punjab State Civil Supplies &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, &#8230; on 10 October, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sudhalkar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S Sudhalkar, M S Gill<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> S.S. Sudhalkar, J.<\/p>\n<p> 1. By this writ petition, petitioner-Corporation is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 3.6.1998 (copy Annexure P\/3) vide which order of dismissal of respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service but without backwages. The workman was dismissed on various charges. They are as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;1. Causing monetary loss to the tune of Rs. 6980.32 on account of showing less mileage in the log book and non-payment of advance money of Rs. 462\/-;\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. Shortage of palm oil amounting to Rs. 1533.60;\n<\/p>\n<p> 3.   Shortage of 200 litres of oil amounting to Rs. 1639A;\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Showing over consumption of 296 litres oil; and  <\/p>\n<p> 5.    For not plying the truck on 28.11.1983 and<\/p>\n<p>1.12.1983.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. All the charges were answered by the Enquiry Officer against the workman. It is observed by the La<br \/>\nbour Court that the workman has confessed to the ex<br \/>\ntent that he was illiterate and could not fill up the log<br \/>\nbook himself and his cleaner used to complete the<br \/>\nsame and regarding advance of Rs. 462\/- he admitted<br \/>\nthat he was liable to deposit the amount but for his being placed under supervision and during 8\/83 the truck<br \/>\nwas not repaired by the Transport Officer, Punsup.\n<\/p>\n<p>The workman has contended that the truck was push<br \/>\nstarted and at the time of loading, engine has to be kept<br \/>\nin running condition as it was difficult to drive the<br \/>\ntruck, Because of this, more diesel was consumed. He<br \/>\nhas also mentioned that his predecessor driver also<br \/>\nmentioned in the log book that the truck is push started<br \/>\nand five litre diesel is consumed and the tyres of the<br \/>\ntruck were not in good condition. The Labour Court<br \/>\nhas also observed that &#8220;documents Ex.WW2\/1  to<br \/>\nEx. WW2\/5 adduced in defence indicate some likelihood of palm oil and partly the department also ordered for the recovery of the shortage in transit loss<br \/>\nand storage loss from the concerned official&#8221;. How<br \/>\never, it has been held that the Enquiry Officer based on<br \/>\nthe evidence of the defence witnesses and did not fully<br \/>\nexonerate the delinquent workman from the charges<br \/>\nregarding shortage of palm oil and also over consumption of diesesl. It is also observed by the Labour Court<br \/>\nthat assistance of a co- worker was not provided to the<br \/>\nworkman in the enquiry proceedings and this was be<br \/>\ncause he has not asked for any such assistance. On this<br \/>\npoint counsel for the respondent-workman has cited<br \/>\nthe case of <a href=\"\/doc\/198394\/\">Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh<br \/>\nand others<\/a>, AIR 1983 SC 454, wherein it has been ob<br \/>\nserved by the Supreme Court as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;The principle deducible from the provision contained in sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 upon its true construction is that where the department is represented by a Presenting Officer, it would be the<br \/>\nduty of the delinquent Officer (Official ?), more<br \/>\nparticularly where he is a class IV Government<br \/>\nservant whose educational equipment is such as<br \/>\nwould lead to an inference that he may not be<br \/>\naware of technical rules prescribed for holding<br \/>\ninquiry, that he is entitled to be defended by an<br \/>\nother Government servant of his choice.  If the<br \/>\nGovernment servant declined to avil of the opportunity, the inquiry would proceed. But if the<br \/>\ndelinquent officer is not informed of his right and<br \/>\nah overall view of the inquiry shows that the delinquent Government servant was at a comparative disadvantage compared to the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority represented by the Presenting Officer<br \/>\nand as in the present case, a superior officer, co-\n<\/p>\n<p>delinquent, is also represented by an officer of his<br \/>\nchoice to defend him the absence of anyone to assist such a Government servant belonging to the<br \/>\nlower echelons of service would unless it is<br \/>\nshown that he had not suffered any prejudice, vitiate the Inquiry.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 3.   The respondent-work man was, in the present<\/p>\n<p>case, working as a driver. The Labour Court has held that no assistance of a co-worker was given to him because he had not asked for any such assistance. The Labour Court has considered this aspect. However, it has not exonerated the workman. It has considered that the delinquent official is a driver. It, therefore, set aside the order of dismissal and order reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages. The backwages in this case would have been from 8.5.1991. The award of the Labour Court is dated 3.6.1998. The Labour Court has, therefore, held that the denial of backwages would be sufficient punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The next question is regarding delay. In this case, it is the case of the respondent-workman that he had filed appeals Ex. W1 dated 23.6.1986 and Ex. W2 dated 13.8.1990, postal receipts of the same were produced at Ex. W3 to Ex. W4. Counsel for the petitioner has not told us as to what decision was taken in these appeals and if taken, when it was taken and when it was conveyed to the respondent-workman and this being so. It will not be proper to hold that the demand was raised at a belated stage. Moreover, in addition to the above reasons, the principle laid down in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1644513\/\">Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Ltd. and<\/a> another, JT 1999(3) SC 38 : 1999(2) SCT 667 (SC), is also applicable to the facts of the present case. We would have considered remanding of the matter to the Enquiry Officer but in view of the long period which has elapsed after the termination order, we do not find it proper to do so. In view of the above reasons we find that it will not be proper to disturb the finding recorded by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. The question of delay, explanation thereof and the punishment, all considered together lead us to observe that the award of the Labour Court should not be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. As a result this writ petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7.   Petition dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court Punjab State Civil Supplies &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, &#8230; on 10 October, 2000 Author: S Sudhalkar Bench: S Sudhalkar, M S Gill JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J. 1. By this writ petition, petitioner-Corporation is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 3.6.1998 (copy Annexure P\/3) vide which order of dismissal [&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-173324","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 v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Punjab State Civil Supplies ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 10 October, 2000 - 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\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Punjab State Civil Supplies ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 10 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-16T07:43:04+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Punjab State Civil Supplies &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, &#8230; on 10 October, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-16T07:43:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1004,\"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\\\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000\",\"name\":\"Punjab State Civil Supplies ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 10 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-16T07:43:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Punjab State Civil Supplies &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, &#8230; on 10 October, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Punjab State Civil Supplies ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 10 October, 2000 - 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\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Punjab State Civil Supplies ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 10 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-16T07:43:04+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Punjab State Civil Supplies &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, &#8230; on 10 October, 2000","datePublished":"2000-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-16T07:43:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000"},"wordCount":1004,"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\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000","name":"Punjab State Civil Supplies ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 10 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-16T07:43:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-civil-supplies-vs-presiding-officer-labour-court-on-10-october-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Punjab State Civil Supplies &#8230; vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, &#8230; on 10 October, 2000"}]},{"@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\/173324","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=173324"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173324\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}