{"id":178236,"date":"2011-06-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011"},"modified":"2018-05-05T08:21:26","modified_gmt":"2018-05-05T02:51:26","slug":"the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 6 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 6 June, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 06\/06\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN\n\nWrit Petition (MD).No.7991 of 2005\n and\nW.P.M.P.No.8638 of 2005\n\nThe Management,\nTamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation Ltd.,\nMadurai Region,\nKurivikaran Salai,\nMadurai.\t\t\t\t     .. Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Presiding Officer,\n  Labour Court, Madurai.\n2.Songammal\t\t\t\t     ..  Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\nto issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records relating to the\naward, dated 19.11.2004 in I.D.No.255\/1994 on the file of the first respondent\nherein and quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioner ...Mr.K.Jayaraman\n^For Respondents...Mr.R.Saravanan for R2\n\t\t\t  \t\t\t  \t\t \t\n     \t\t  \t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe second respondent was employed as a Sweeper in the godown of the<br \/>\npetitioner corporation from 1982. According to the second respondent, she was<br \/>\norally terminated from 07.07.1992 without any reason. She took up the matter of<br \/>\nnon-employment before the first respondent in I.D.No.255 of 1994, since the<br \/>\nconciliatory efforts failed. The petitioner took up the plea before the Labour<br \/>\nCourt that the second respondent was not their employee and she was a contract<br \/>\nlabour. On the other hand, the plea of the second respondent was that she was<br \/>\ndirectly employed by the writ petitioner. On the side of the second respondent,<br \/>\nthree witnesses were examined and four documents were marked as Ex.W1 to Ex.W4.<br \/>\nOn the side of the writ petitioner one witness was examined and three documents<br \/>\nwere marked as Ex.M1 to Ex.M3. The labour Court held that the writ petitioner<br \/>\nwas the employer and the second respondent was directly employed by the writ<br \/>\npetitioner in the godown. Based on such a factual finding, the first respondent,<br \/>\nthe Labour Court, passed an Award dated 19.11.2004 in I.D.No.225 of 1994 holding<br \/>\nthat non-employment was not justified and directed the writ petitioner to<br \/>\nreinstate the second respondent with continuity of services and backwages. The<br \/>\nwrit petitioner has now sought to challenge the afore-said award.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court<br \/>\ncommitted an error in holding that the second respondent was employed by the<br \/>\nwrit petitioner based on the evidence of WW2 and the document Ex.W4. The learned<br \/>\ncounsel further submits that the Award has to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent<br \/>\nsubmits that the Labour Court has rendered a factual finding based on the<br \/>\nevidence and documents produced by the second respondent and therefore this<br \/>\nCourt may not interfere on the factual findings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Both the learned counsels relied on paragraphs 22 and 24 of the Award.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. I have considered the submissions made on either side. The second<br \/>\nwitness (WW2) examined by the second respondent before the Labour Court is a<br \/>\nMaistry working in the writ petitioner corporation.  He deposed in favour of the<br \/>\nsecond respondent and a document Ex.W4 was also marked through WW2. Ex.W4 is the<br \/>\ncertificate issued by the Assistant Manager of respondent corporation.<br \/>\nParagraphs 22 and 24 of the Award are extracted hereunder:-<br \/>\n\t&#8220;22.WW2 is one of the Maistry working in the respondent corporation<br \/>\ndeposed evidence. The employment of the petitioner continuously for 4 years for<br \/>\nthe month of 1988 onwards. He has further deposed categorically and specifically<br \/>\nthat the petitioner was not working under the contractor. The further specific<br \/>\nevidence deposed by WW2 is that the petitioner received salary from the<br \/>\nrespondent corporation. These are the clinching evidence supporting the<br \/>\ncontention of the petitioner along with the document marked through him under<br \/>\nEx.W4. The particulars available in the document runs:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;jpUkjp BrhA;fk;khs; vd;gth; fle;j 1988 Mk;tUlk; Kjy; fpl;lA;fpapy; Tl;o<br \/>\nRj;jk; bra;gtuhf gzpg[hpe;J te;jjhf Bk!;jphp g.uh$` TWfpd;whh;. cWg;gpdh; re;jh<br \/>\nurPJ vz; fhz;gpf;fg;gltpy;iy. jw;BghJ bjhlh;e;J gzpg[hpe;J tUfpd;whh;&#8221;<br \/>\nThe certificate issued on 30.06.1992 by one Assistant Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil<br \/>\nSupply Corporation Limited Cap Storage, kappalur Madurai District. The said<br \/>\nMaistry Rajue has been examined as WW2. The said Raju has informed to the<br \/>\nrespondent corporation office that one Songammal was working in the go-down for<br \/>\nthe purpose of cleaning from 1988 onwards..\n<\/p>\n<p>\t24. The reliability of this document could not be on cent percentage. It<br \/>\nis a document marked on objection lacking the particulars of ingredients or<br \/>\ndocuments. It is no doubt the xerox copies are filed and received on secondary<br \/>\nevidence since, the trial conducted before this Court is a summary trial nature.<br \/>\nThe evidence act can not be strictly followed in a summary trial procedure.<br \/>\nStrictly speaking the legal ingredients of marking a document as Ex.W4 are not<br \/>\nfully available. But at the same time the fact available in that document<br \/>\n&#8220;namely the petitioner is an employee as stated by Raju&#8221; is a clinching fact on<br \/>\nthe relevancy of fact to decide the point of issue. It can not be said at this<br \/>\nstage that the content available in Ex.W4 is very relevant and most relevant.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Labour Court<br \/>\nhas erred in accepting Ex.W4 when a xerox copy was filed. I am not agreeable to<br \/>\nthe submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. WW2 is a<br \/>\npermanent employee of the petitioner corporation and that is not in dispute. He<br \/>\ndeposed that the second respondent was continuously employed as Sweeper in the<br \/>\ngodown. Apart from that, Ex.W4 certificate was given by the Corporation. In<br \/>\nparagraph 22 of the Award, a portion of the certificate was extracted. I am<br \/>\nextracting here Ex.W4 fully:\n<\/p>\n<p>jkpH; ehL Efh; bghUs; thdpgf;  fHfk; ypl;,<br \/>\nkJiu khtl;lk;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tRik J]f;FBthh; gw;wpa g[s;sp tpguk;\n<\/p>\n<pre>1.bgah;\t\t\t\t    . . Mrs.BrhA;fk;khs;\n\n2.fzth; bgah;\t\t\t    . . S.jh;kuh$;;\n\n3.taJ\t\t\t\t    . . 40\n\n4.tPl;L tpyhrk;\t\t\t  . . 2tJ thh;L,  Bjhg;g{h; (po) \t\t\t\n\t\t     kJiu\n\n5.$hjp\t\t\t\t\t   . . ne;J, gpukiyf; fs;sh;\n\n6.Btiyf;Fr; Brh;e;j Bjjp            . . 1988\n\n7.bkhj;jk; Btiy ghh;j;j tUlk;   . .  1 tUlk;\n\n8.jw;BghJ gzpg[hpa[k; nlk;            . . jpwe;j btspBrkpg;g[,  \t\t\t\n\t\t\t    fg;gY]h;\n\n9.jw;BghJ ve;j rA;fj;jpy;\n    cWg;gpduhf cs;shh;\t\t     . .\n\n10.rA;f bkk;gh; vz;.\t\t     .  . cWg;gpdh; ny;iy\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tifbaGj;J\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>Bkw;fz;l tpguA;fs; vy;yhk; ehd; cz;ik vd;W cWjp TWfpBwd;.<br \/>\nbgUtpuy; Buif gjpt[.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBk!;jphp bgah;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\tifbaGj;J<br \/>\njpUkjp BrhA;fk;khs; vd;gth; fle;j 1988 Mk;tUlk; Kjy; fpl;lA;fpapy; Tl;o Rj;jk;<br \/>\nbra;gtuhf gzpg[hpe;J te;jjhf Bk!;jphp g.uh$` TWfpd;whh;. cWg;gpdh; re;jh urPJ<br \/>\nvz; fhz;gpf;fg;gltpy;iy. jw;BghJ bjhlh;e;J gzpg[hpe;J tUfpd;whh;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Based on the evidence of WW2 and document Ex.W4, the Labour Court<br \/>\nrecorded a factual finding.  In my view, the conclusion arrived at by the Labour<br \/>\nCourt cannot be characterised as a perverse one. In this regard it is useful to<br \/>\nrefer to Rule 39 of the Tamilnadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 which is<br \/>\nextracted hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Evidence &#8211; A Conciliation Officer, Board, Court, Labour Court or Tribunal<br \/>\nor an Arbitrator may call for, admit or accept any evidence at any stage and in<br \/>\nany manner, which in equity and good conscience he thinks fit.&#8221;<br \/>\nThus, the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner regarding Ex.W4<br \/>\ndeserves to be rejected.  Further, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction<br \/>\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not incline to interfere<br \/>\nwith such factual finding.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the Award. Hence, the writ<br \/>\npetition is dismissed and the writ petitioner is directed to comply with the<br \/>\nAward within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this<br \/>\nOrder. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>jikr<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\n  Labour Court, Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 6 June, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06\/06\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN Writ Petition (MD).No.7991 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.8638 of 2005 The Management, Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Madurai Region, Kurivikaran Salai, Madurai. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Presiding [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178236","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 6 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 6 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-05T02:51:26+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=\"7 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-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 6 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-05T02:51:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1124,\"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-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011\",\"name\":\"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 6 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-05T02:51:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 6 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@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 The Presiding Officer on 6 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 6 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-05T02:51:26+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 6 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-05T02:51:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011"},"wordCount":1124,"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-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011","name":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 6 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-05T02:51:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-6-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 6 June, 2011"}]},{"@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\/178236","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=178236"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178236\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}