{"id":178834,"date":"2004-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-06-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004"},"modified":"2018-05-15T03:02:13","modified_gmt":"2018-05-14T21:32:13","slug":"kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004","title":{"rendered":"Kerala Private Motor & Mechanical vs The Presiding Officer on 17 June, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kerala Private Motor & Mechanical vs The Presiding Officer on 17 June, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 32425 of 2004(I)\n\n\n1. KERALA PRIVATE MOTOR & MECHANICAL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. S.ANIL KUMAR, PUTHEN VEEDU,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. QUILON AUTOMOBILES EMPLOYEES\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.H.B.SHENOY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :17\/06\/2004\n\n O R D E R\n                       S.SIRI JAGAN, J\n                ===================\n                 W.P (C).No.32425 OF 2004\n                ===================\n           Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008.\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The workman involved in ID No.54\/1996 before the<\/p>\n
Labour Court, Kollam is the petitioner herein, who<\/p>\n
challenges Ext.P7 award passed by the Labour Court in that<\/p>\n
ID. The issue referred for adjudication in that ID was as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “Whether denial of employment to Sri.S. Anilkumar,
\n    conductor with effect from 4.2.1994 by the management of
\n    Quilon Automobile Employee Co-operative Society Ltd.
\n    No.!797, Kadampanadu is justifiable if not the relief entitled
\n    to the worker”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.    The Labour Court found that the workman was<\/p>\n
actually dismissed from service after conducting an enquiry<\/p>\n
against which the workman did not raise any objection and<\/p>\n
therefore there is no denial of employment. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
the Labour Court held that the alleged denial of<\/p>\n
employment to      the petitioner is not true, that he was<\/p>\n
dismissed from service as per a validly conducted enquiry<\/p>\n
W.P (C).No.32425 OF 2004     – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
and that he is not entitled to any relief against the<\/p>\n
management. This award is under challenge before me.<\/p>\n
     3. For appreciating the contention of the petitioner in<\/p>\n
the right perspective, it is necessary to refer to a few facts<\/p>\n
in detail.\n<\/p>\n
     4. The complaint which gave rise to the ID was that the<\/p>\n
petitioner was denied employment with effect from<\/p>\n
4.2.1994. While negotiations between the union and the<\/p>\n
management on the question of denial of employment with<\/p>\n
effect from 4.2.1994 were pending, the management issued<\/p>\n
a show cause notice dated 7.3.1994, to which the petitioner<\/p>\n
filed an explanation dated 9.3.1994. Pursuant to the same, a<\/p>\n
domestic enquiry also ensued, in which the petitioner<\/p>\n
participated. While that proceedings were going on, the<\/p>\n
industrial dispute on the issue of denial of employment of<\/p>\n
the petitioner with effect from 4.2.1994 came to be referred<\/p>\n
for adjudication to the Labour Court, which dispute was<\/p>\n
adjudicated by the Labour Court as I.D.No.54\/1996. While<\/p>\n
that ID was being adjudicated, the management dismissed<\/p>\n
W.P (C).No.32425 OF 2004     – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner from service with effect from 16.1.1997.<\/p>\n
Against the same, the petitioner filed Ext. P5 complaint<\/p>\n
before the 1st respondent under section 33A of the<\/p>\n
Industrial Disputes Act, in which he challenged the validity<\/p>\n
of his dismissal without obtaining prior approval from the<\/p>\n
Labour Court as provided under Section 33(2)(b) of the<\/p>\n
Industrial Disputes Act. In that compliant, he challenged<\/p>\n
the validity of the enquiry as well. He contented that no<\/p>\n
charge sheet was issued to the petitioner by the<\/p>\n
management, that the charges were framed by the Enquiry<\/p>\n
Officer, that the Enquiry Officer did not comply with the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice and that the petitioner was not<\/p>\n
given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence.         The<\/p>\n
petitioner would submit that the complaint under Section<\/p>\n
33A was numbered as ID No.23\/2000 and that the same is<\/p>\n
still pending adjudication before the Labour Court. It is<\/p>\n
while the matters were standing so that Ext.P7 award was<\/p>\n
passed holding that the enquiry is valid and proper in so far<\/p>\n
as the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the<\/p>\n
W.P (C).No.32425 OF 2004    – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
enquiry proceedings in his claim statement.<\/p>\n
     5. The counsel for the petitioner would argue that the<\/p>\n
Labour Court did not appreciate the facts of the case and<\/p>\n
the scope of proceedings under Section 33A in the right<\/p>\n
perspective. She would point out that the Labour Court<\/p>\n
failed to note that the validity of the enquiry and dismissal<\/p>\n
was elaborately challenged in the complaint under Section<\/p>\n
33A and that the issue in this I.D. was different in so far as<\/p>\n
the dismissal of the petitioner was pending adjudication of<\/p>\n
the issue of denial of employment. Therefore, she would<\/p>\n
submit that the impugned award is totally unsustainable.<\/p>\n
     6. After understanding the facts as narrated above, I<\/p>\n
have no hesitation to hold that the procedure adopted by<\/p>\n
the Labour Court is totally against the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly, the issue referred for<\/p>\n
adjudication was denial of employment with effect from<\/p>\n
4.2.1994. It is subsequent to raising of that dispute that the<\/p>\n
disciplinary     proceedings  were    initiated against    the<\/p>\n
petitioner. The management had no case that subsequent<\/p>\n
W.P (C).No.32425 OF 2004     – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
to 4.2.1994, the petitioner was reinstated in service before<\/p>\n
initiating disciplinary proceedings. On the other hand, they<\/p>\n
had participated in the industrial dispute in which the issue<\/p>\n
involved was denial of employment with effect from<\/p>\n
4.2.1994. It was while the adjudication of that dispute was<\/p>\n
going on the petitioner was dismissed from service.<\/p>\n
Therefore, at the time of dismissal of the petitioner on<\/p>\n
16.1.1997 an industrial dispute relating to denial of<\/p>\n
employment to the petitioner was pending adjudication by<\/p>\n
the Labour Court itself. In those circumstances, certainly<\/p>\n
Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act is squarely<\/p>\n
attracted. The management could not have dismissed the<\/p>\n
workman from service without filing an application for<\/p>\n
approval of the Labour Court, since an ID in which the<\/p>\n
denial of employment of the petitioner was an issue, was<\/p>\n
pending adjudication. The Labour Court rightly numbered<\/p>\n
the complaint under Section 33A as a separate industrial<\/p>\n
dispute and started proceedings in that ID as ID<\/p>\n
No.23\/2000. In fact, the question of validity of the enquiry<\/p>\n
W.P (C).No.32425 OF 2004        – 6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
etc., and dismissal ought to have been considered in that ID<\/p>\n
only and not in ID No. 54\/96, as done by the Labour Court.<\/p>\n
Therefore the procedure adopted by the Labour Court is<\/p>\n
clearly wrong.\n<\/p>\n
      7. On merits also, Ext.P7 award appears to be against<\/p>\n
the facts of the case. Ext.P5 is the complaint, under Section<\/p>\n
33A, filed by the petitioner. In the same, in paragraphs 8 to<\/p>\n
12, the petitioner has specifically contended as follows:<\/p>\n
           8) Regarding the domestic enquiry and subsequent
\n     dismissal the complainant submits as follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The enquiry was conducted even without giving
\n     proper 2nd specific charge sheet to the complainant. The
\n     show cause notice dated 7\/3\/1994 was issued by the
\n     opposite party to the complainant after the illegal denial of
\n     employment to the complainant with effect from 4\/2\/1991.
\n     The same was issued by the opposite party with a view to
\n     their avowed purpose to terminate the complainant from
\n     their service at any rate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           9)   Though the Enquiry Officer was appointed on
\n     15\/3\/1994, he purposely prolonged the enquiry proceedings
\n     for a period of two years from 5\/5\/1994 to 21\/6\/1996 with
\n     the connivance of the opposite party to harass and
\n     victimise   the complainant.   During the said period the
\n     opposite party deliberately denied employment to the
\n     complainant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           10)   The charge sheet was issued by the opposite
\n     party to the complainant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The charge was framed by the Enquiry Officer after
\n     the enquiry proceedings commenced. Thus no opportunity<\/p>\n
W.P (C).No.32425 OF 2004         – 7 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     was given to the complainant for explaining case properly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The allegations raised in the show cause notice dated
\n     7\/3\/94 against me are vague and not specific and against
\n     the facts.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           11)   The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry
\n     without complying the principles of natural justice. He did
\n     not record the proceedings and evidences properly.       He
\n     was not impartial. He was based against me. He has not
\n     given opportunity to me to adduce my evidences.         The
\n     application filed by the complainant praying for allowing to
\n     adduce evidence of the complainant was not allowed by the
\n     enquiry officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Therefore, the enquiry report and proceedings are
\n     against facts illegal, improper, and invalid and hence this
\n     Hon’ble Court may set aside the enquiry report.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           12) In spite of the repeated written demand of the
\n     complainant the opposite party did not give the copy of
\n     enquiry report and proceedings to the complainant.
\n     Therefore the complainant could not explain the defects of
\n     the enquiry report and proceedings and the findings of the
\n     Enquiry Officer. This is a clear violation of Principles of
\n     Natural Justice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The extreme punishment dismissal of the complainant
\n     was not necessary and unwarranted on the allegations
\n     raised by the opposite party against the complainant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The action of the opposite party is dismissing the
\n     complainant is hard and hash and against the Principles of
\n     Natural Justice and it amounts to unfair labour practice and
\n     victimisation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Therefore I humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may
\n     be pleased to set aside the dismissal order dated
\n     16\/1\/1997.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8. However, in the award, in paragraph 9, the Labour<\/p>\n
Court held thus:\n<\/p>\n
           “The worker while raising the dispute through the<\/p>\n
W.P (C).No.32425 OF 2004         – 8 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     union before the District Labour Officer alleged that it was a
\n     case of denial of employment for no reason and the
\n     existence of the disciplinary proceedings against the worker
\n     was not disclosed. A perusal of Ext.14 and the report of the
\n     enquiry officer shows that the worker was participating the
\n     enquiry through out he had cross examined all the witnesses
\n     examined as MW1 to MW5. As I have earlier stated no
\n     separate claim statement is filed before this court and the
\n     enquiry proceedings are not challenged by the worker in
\n     any manner.      In the evidence also the worker is not
\n     canvassing anything against the disciplinary proceedings.
\n     As such there is no reason to discard the enquiry report and
\n     the allegation of the worker that it is a wrongful denial of
\n     employment by the management from 4.2.1994 onwards
\n     totally failed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9. The finding in Ext.P7 that the petitioner had not<\/p>\n
challenged the enquiry proceedings in any                 manner is<\/p>\n
clearly against the facts of the case in view of Ext.P5<\/p>\n
complaint, which has been numbered as an ID and is being<\/p>\n
adjudicated. In fact the issue referred in I.D.54 of 1996<\/p>\n
namely ‘denial of employment of the petitioner’ was not<\/p>\n
adjudicated at all and the Labour Court erroneously<\/p>\n
assumed that the two issues merged into one on account of<\/p>\n
the subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The Labour Court<\/p>\n
lost right of the fact that the contention of the petitioner is<\/p>\n
that he was denied employment from 4.2.1994 and that the<\/p>\n
management had not case that the disciplinary proceedings<\/p>\n
W.P (C).No.32425 OF 2004    – 9 –<\/span><\/p>\n
was after reinstating him. The Labour Court ought to have<\/p>\n
examined whether the subsequent disciplinary proceedings<\/p>\n
themselves was not one initiated for overcoming the<\/p>\n
illegality of denying employment to the workman. In any<\/p>\n
event it is beyond comprehension as to how the Labour<\/p>\n
Court could have accepted the dismissal during the<\/p>\n
pendency of the dispute on denial of employment as a<\/p>\n
defence for justifying the denial of employment.      It is<\/p>\n
pertinent to note that the Labour Court does not refer to<\/p>\n
any contention of the management regarding the status of<\/p>\n
the workman from 4.2.1994 to 16.1.1997, whether he was<\/p>\n
about from work or was suspended pending enquiry without<\/p>\n
a finding on which the issue of denial of employment could<\/p>\n
not have been validly disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
     10. Further, in paragraph 8 of Ext.P7 award, the<\/p>\n
Labour Court holds that the secretary of the society during<\/p>\n
1994 was examined as MW2, who deposed that the worker<\/p>\n
was dismissed from service for misconduct after due<\/p>\n
enquiry. I am at a loss to understand how a secretary of<\/p>\n
W.P (C).No.32425 OF 2004     – 10 –<\/span><\/p>\n
1994 could vouch for the dismissal of an employee on<\/p>\n
16\/1\/1997. That would further show that the Labour Court<\/p>\n
did not apply his mind properly to the facts of the case.<\/p>\n
     For all the above     reasons, clearly Ext.P7 award is<\/p>\n
clearly vitiated.    Accordingly the same is quashed.    The<\/p>\n
matter is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh<\/p>\n
adjudication in accordance with law along with ID No. 23 of<\/p>\n
2000 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four<\/p>\n
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.<\/p>\n
This writ petition is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
rhs<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kerala Private Motor & Mechanical vs The Presiding Officer on 17 June, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 32425 of 2004(I) 1. KERALA PRIVATE MOTOR & MECHANICAL … Petitioner 2. S.ANIL KUMAR, PUTHEN VEEDU, Vs 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, … Respondent 2. QUILON AUTOMOBILES EMPLOYEES For Petitioner :SRI.H.B.SHENOY […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178834","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKerala Private Motor & Mechanical vs The Presiding Officer on 17 June, 2004 - 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\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kerala Private Motor & Mechanical vs The Presiding Officer on 17 June, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-14T21:32:13+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\\\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kerala Private Motor & Mechanical vs The Presiding Officer on 17 June, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-14T21:32:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1916,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004\",\"name\":\"Kerala Private Motor & Mechanical vs The Presiding Officer on 17 June, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-14T21:32:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kerala Private Motor & Mechanical vs The Presiding Officer on 17 June, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Kerala Private Motor & Mechanical vs The Presiding Officer on 17 June, 2004 - 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\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kerala Private Motor & Mechanical vs The Presiding Officer on 17 June, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-14T21:32:13+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\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kerala Private Motor & Mechanical vs The Presiding Officer on 17 June, 2004","datePublished":"2004-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-14T21:32:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004"},"wordCount":1916,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004","name":"Kerala Private Motor & Mechanical vs The Presiding Officer on 17 June, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-14T21:32:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-private-motor-mechanical-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-june-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kerala Private Motor & Mechanical vs The Presiding Officer on 17 June, 2004"}]},{"@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\/178834","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=178834"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178834\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178834"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178834"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178834"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}