{"id":174633,"date":"2002-03-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002"},"modified":"2015-02-13T13:40:44","modified_gmt":"2015-02-13T08:10:44","slug":"the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"The Management vs T.A. Ramaiah on 12 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Management vs T.A. Ramaiah on 12 March, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED :12\/03\/2002  \n\nCORAM:   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ            \n\nW.P.No.16422 of 1998  \n\nThe Management   \nGood Samaritan Rural Development  \n  Project,\nTirupattur\nVellore District.                               ..              Petitioner\n\n                Vs.\n\n1. T.A. Ramaiah \n\n2. Deputy Commissioner of Labour \n     (Appeals),\n   (Appellate Authority under Payment\n      of Gratuity Act, 1972)\n    DMS Complex, \n    Teynampet, Chennai - 6.\n\n3. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour \n   (Controlling Authority under Payment\n     of Gratuity Act, 1972),\n   DMS Complex,  \n   Teynampet, Chennai - 6.              ..              Respondents\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying to issue a Writ of Certiorari  as stated therein.\n\n !For petitioner        :       Mr.Vijayan, S.C.\n                                                for M\/s.King and Patridge\n\nFor respondents        :       Mr.K.M. Ramesh for R.1\n                                                Mr.M.Mahalingam,\n                                                Govt. Advocate for R.2 and R.3\n\n: O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
         Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to  issue
\n     a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in P.G.A.  No.37
\n     of  1997 on the file of the second respondent dated 10.3.1998
\n     and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
         2.  In  the  affidavit  filed  in  support  of  the  writ
\n     petition,  the  petitioner  would  submit that the Payment of
\n     Gratuity Act,  1972  is  not  applicable  to  the  petitioner
\n     management  since  it is not a commercial establishment; that
\n     the petitioner management was started in the year 19 78 by an
\n     American Missionary and was registered  under  the  Societies
\n     Registration   Act,   1975;  that  the  above  project  is  a
\n     charitable  organisation   aimed   to   serve   without   any
\n     consideration of caste, creed or religion lending its medical
\n     aid  for  eye  care,  rural  health,  medical  aid  to tribal
\n     welfare, child care, evangelism, care of orphans, handicapped
\n     and  also  carrying  out  rehabilitation  programme,   relief
\n     nutrition  and  immunization programmes for poor and needy in
\n     and  around  Tirupattur  Town,  Vellore  District;  that  the
\n     petitioner  project  receives  financial  assistance from one
\n     Christoffel Blinden Mission, Germany and the nominal  charges
\n     voluntarily paid by some of the patients are also made use of
\n     for  running the project successfully; that there is no other
\n     source of income, nor received from any  quarter,  much  less
\n     from  the Central or State Government by the petitioner; that
\n     the intention of the  funding  agency  is  to  see  that  the
\n     project  gradually  becomes  self-supporting,  and therefore,
\n     they are also planning to reduce the grant year  after  year;
\n     that  in  such  background,  the  project  is run without any
\n     profit, motive, but only on service to the needy public.\n<\/p>\n
         3.   The  petitioner  would  further  submit   that   the
\n     petitioner   organisation  being  charitable  and  non-profit
\n     making one, it falls outside the  scope  of  the  Payment  of
\n     Gratuity  Act,  1972;  that  the  first  respondent,  who was
\n     working with  the  petitioner  as  an  Opthalmic  Technician,
\n     resigned  on 12.4.1994 and preferred a claim before the third
\n     respondent for the payment of gratuity of Rs.10,675\/- stating
\n     that his last drawn wages  was  Rs.1,682\/-  for  the  service
\n     rendered  by  him  from 1.4.1983 to 12.4.1994; that the third
\n     respondent ought to have rejected the claim made by the first
\n     respondent  on  the  simple  ground  that  it  is  barred  by
\n     limitation  since  having  approached the authorities after a
\n     delay of 636 days, besides on  ground  that  the  Payment  of
\n     Gratuity  Act is not applicable to the petitioner management;
\n     that an appeal preferred  before  the  second  respondent  in
\n     P.G.A.   No.37 of 1997 also having come to be rejected by the
\n     second respondent confirming the order passed  by  the  third
\n     respondent as per its order dated 10.3.1998 which is impugned
\n     herein,  the  petitioner  has come forward to seek the remedy
\n     extracted supra.\n<\/p>\n
         4.  During arguments, the learned  counsel  appearing  on
\n     behalf  of the petitioner would submit that the main question
\n     that is to be answered in the writ petition  is  whether  the
\n     Payment  of Gratuity Act will be applicable to a hospital run
\n     by a society, based on donation especially when it is alleged
\n     that the hospital is not making any  profit.    To  establish
\n     this  fact,  the  learned  counsel  would  cite  the preamble
\n     Section 1(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which reads
\n     as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         1.  Short title, extent, application and  commencement  –
\n     (1) This Act may be called the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
\n         (2) it extends to the whole of India:   provided  that in
\n     so far as it relates to plantations or ports,  it  shall  not
\n     extend to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.   (3)    It   shall
\n     apply to-   (a) every factory, mine, oil  field,  plantation,
\n     port and railway company;   (b)  every  shop or establishment
\n     within the meaning of any law for the time being in force  in
\n     relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten
\n     or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of
\n     the preceding twelve months;        (c)       such      other
\n     establishments or class of establishments, in  which  ten  or
\n     more  employees  are employed, or were employed on any day of
\n     the preceding twelve months, as the Central  Government  may,
\n     by notification, specify in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
     At  this  juncture, the learned counsel would cite a judgment
\n     delivered in W.M.Panjarapole Vs.  B.D.  Bhavasar reported  in
\n     1995-I L.L.N.    10 5 wherein it is held that ‘the petitioner
\n     is a Panjarapole …  dealing  mainly  with  taking  care  of
\n     disabled  animals  as  set out in its constitution annexed to
\n     the petition.  A  question  arose  whether  its  employee  is
\n     entitled to payment of gratuity under the Act.  The authority
\n     under  the  Act had decided in favour of the employee and the
\n     matter was carried in appeal provided under the said act  and
\n     there also, the petitioner lost and ultimately it was held by
\n     the High Court of Judicature, Gujarat that Panjarapole is not
\n     doing  any  business  or  trade  or profession or any work in
\n     connection with or incidental or ancillary to it – Obviously,
\n     it  will  not  be  covered  by  definition  of  ”  commercial
\n     establishment”  –  Payment  of  Gratuity  Act,  1972,  is not
\n     applicable to employees of Panjarapole.”\n<\/p>\n
         5.  While such being the position  of  law,  the  learned
\n     counsel  would  continue  to  argue  that the decision of the
\n     controlling authority and the appellate authority would  only
\n     be  perverse  since  no reasonable man would arrive at such a
\n     decision based on the materials placed before them; that  the
\n     appellate authority simply relies on the salary of Rs.1,200\/=
\n     p.m.   alleged to have been obtained by the first respondent,
\n     which is incorrect.  On such arguments, the  learned  counsel
\n     would end up saying that the order of the appellate authority
\n     becomes liable only to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
         6.   On  the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on
\n     behalf of the respondent,  besides  laying  emphasis  to  the
\n     preamble  and  definition  contained in Section (1) to (3) of
\n     the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would further  submit  that
\n     Section  2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act,
\n     1947 is relevant to the context of the case, which gives  the
\n     definition  for  the  term “establishment”, wherein the State
\n     Government may  by  notification  declare  any  establishment
\n     within  the definition of “establishment” under the Shops and
\n     Establishments Act.  Further more, even from the  Payment  of
\n     Gratuity  Act,  1972,  provision  has been made to the effect
\n     that ‘such other establishments or class  of  establishments,
\n     in  which ten or more employees are employed’, and therefore,
\n     the import of the Section is, any establishment having ten or
\n     more employees employed would be liable under the Payment  of
\n     Gratuity Act, 1972 and hence it cannot be argued that the Act
\n     does  not  apply  to  the  management  of  the  nature of the
\n     petitioner.  On such arguments,  the  learned  counsel  would
\n     pray  to  dismiss  the  writ  petition  as  devoid of merits,
\n     especially in view of the fact that no  legal  questions  are
\n     involved so far as the impugned order passed by the appellate
\n     authority is concerned.     7.    In   consideration  of  the
\n     pleadings by parties, having regard to the  materials  placed
\n     on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what
\n     comes  to  be  known  is  that the order impugned in the writ
\n     petition has been passed by the appellate authority under the
\n     Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in P.G.A.  No.37 of 1997 on  an
\n     appeal  preferred by the petitioner herein under the relevant
\n     provisions, praying to set aside  the  order  passed  by  the
\n     Controlling Authority in  P.G.  Case No.  315 of 1996 thereby
\n     not only holding that the eye hospital run by the  petitioner
\n     is  governed  by  the  Payment  of Gratuity Act, but also the
\n     first respondent  is  entitled  to  the  gratuity  amount  of
\n     Rs.6,473\/= on the basis of his basic pay of Rs.850\/= and D.A.
\n     at Rs.170\/=  per  month.    It is only aggrieved against this
\n     order passed by the  controlling  authority,  the  petitioner
\n     management  has  preferred  the  appeal  before the appellate
\n     authority, which has passed the order impugned herein.\n<\/p>\n
         8.   A  careful  perusal  of  the  order  passed  by  the
\n     appellate  authority would reveal that it had not only traced
\n     the facts and circumstances encircling the  whole  case,  but
\n     also  would  go  through  each and every ground of appeal and
\n     based on such facts and the position of  law,  would  analyze
\n     the controlling authority’s order and decision and the manner
\n     in  which it has been arrived at and would take up two points
\n     for its consideration,  viz.,  (i)  whether  the  Payment  of
\n     Gratuity Act  will  not apply to the appellant hospital?  and\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) whether, in any event, the reasonable amount of gratuity
\n     would be Rs.6,473\/= on the basis of basic pay of Rs.850\/= and
\n     D.A.  Rs.270\/= per month?  Taking up the issues  one  by  one
\n     and  applying  the  facts  with  the position of law as it is
\n     prescribed under Section 1(3)(b) of the Payment  of  Gratuity
\n     Act  and  remarking  that the establishment is covered by the
\n     Minimum  Wages  Act,  1948  and  since  the  hospital  is  an
\n     ‘establishment’  within the meaning of Section 1(3)(b) of the
\n     Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and remarking that there is no
\n     distinction made between both these Acts, pertaining  to  the
\n     meaning   of   ‘establishment’   and   further  there  is  no
\n     classification made under  the  law  between  an  institution
\n     which  is  run on commercial basis and a minority institution
\n     which  is  run  on  the  charitable  basis  so  far  as   the
\n     applicability of  the  Act  is concerned.  Therefore, for the
\n     first point framed, the appellate authority would  arrive  at
\n     the  conclusion  holding  that  the  eye  hospital run by the
\n     management falls within the meaning of Section 1(3)(b) of the
\n     Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.\n<\/p>\n
         9.  Since the above legal question has been solved,  easy
\n     conclusions  have  been  arrived  at  not only going into the
\n     facts of the first respondent having  been  employed  therein
\n     for  such  period, on such salary and the other emoluments so
\n     as to conclude agreeing with the quantum arrived  at  by  the
\n     controlling  authority,  thereby  dismissing  the appeal, but
\n     also  confirming  the  order  passed   by   the   controlling
\n     authority, in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
         10.   Either pertaining to the decision arrived at by the
\n     appellate  authority  in  agreeing   with   the   controlling
\n     authority  holding  that  the petitioner management is one to
\n     which the Payment of Gratuity Act, 19  72  is  applicable  or
\n     even  in  arriving  at the quantum of such decisions so as to
\n     pass the order impugned, the  appellate  authority  has  been
\n     fair and  reasonable.  It is not only the decision arrived at
\n     in the manner aforementioned, but also the  manner  in  which
\n     the  decision  has been arrived at by the appellate authority
\n     is beyond question since even on the part of the  petitioner,
\n     there  is  no  strong  allegation  made or established on any
\n     legal  lapse  such  as  opportunity,   and   therefore,   the
\n     interference  of  this Court sought to be made into the order
\n     gs.  V.KANAGARAJ,J.  passed by the appellate authority  which
\n     is impugned herein, is neither necessary nor warranted in the
\n     circumstances  of  the  case resulting in only dismissing the
\n     writ petition being devoid of merits.\n<\/p>\n
         In result,<\/p>\n
         (i) there is no merit in the writ petition and  the  same
\n     is dismissed as such;\n<\/p>\n
         (ii) the  order  dated 10.3.1998 made in P.G.A.  No.37 of
\n     1997 passed by the Deputy  Commissioner  of  Labour  and  the
\n     appellate  authority  under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
\n     is hereby confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
         However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be
\n     no order as to costs.       Consequently, W.P.M.P.   No.24815
\n     of 1998 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     gs.\n<\/p>\n
                                 12.03.2002<\/p>\n
     To\n<\/p>\n
     1.   Deputy  Commissioner  of  Labour  (Appeals),  (Appellate
\n     Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972)  DMS  Complex,
\n     Teynampet, Chennai – 6.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    The   Assistant  Commissioner  of  Labour  (Controlling
\n     Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), DMS  Complex,
\n     Teynampet, Chennai – 6.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Management vs T.A. Ramaiah on 12 March, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :12\/03\/2002 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ W.P.No.16422 of 1998 The Management Good Samaritan Rural Development Project, Tirupattur Vellore District. .. Petitioner Vs. 1. T.A. Ramaiah 2. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), (Appellate Authority […]<\/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-174633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Management vs T.A. Ramaiah on 12 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Management vs T.A. Ramaiah on 12 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-13T08:10:44+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=\"10 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-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Management vs T.A. Ramaiah on 12 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-13T08:10:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1912,\"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-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002\",\"name\":\"The Management vs T.A. Ramaiah on 12 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-13T08:10:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Management vs T.A. Ramaiah on 12 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@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 Management vs T.A. Ramaiah on 12 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Management vs T.A. Ramaiah on 12 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-13T08:10:44+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Management vs T.A. Ramaiah on 12 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-13T08:10:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002"},"wordCount":1912,"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-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002","name":"The Management vs T.A. Ramaiah on 12 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-13T08:10:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-t-a-ramaiah-on-12-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Management vs T.A. Ramaiah on 12 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/174633","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=174633"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174633\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}