{"id":18008,"date":"2010-05-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-23T01:37:11","modified_gmt":"2016-05-22T20:07:11","slug":"state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/8664\/2009\t 12\/ 12\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8664 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDHIRSINH\nNATHAJI RATHOD - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMS\nSACHI MATHUR AGP  for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR PP MAJMUDAR for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 11\/05\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\tHeard
\nlearned AGP Ms.Shachi Mathur for petitioner   State of Gujarat and
\nlearned advocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar for respondent.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIn
\npresent petition, petitioner has challenged award passed by Labour
\nCourt, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No.306 of 1996, Exh.47, dated
\n1.4.2008 whereby Labour Court has granted reinstatement with
\ncontinuity of service without back wages of interim period.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tLearned
\nAGP Ms.Mathur has given facts of present case, which are as under :\n<\/p>\n
3.1\tThat
\nthe respondent workman was terminated by the petitioner and therefore
\nhe gave demand notice and raised the dispute before the conciliation
\nofficer. Upon the failure of the conciliation proceedings referred
\nunder Section 10 of the I.D.Act,1947 came to be made to the Labour
\nCourt, Palanpur being LCR No.306 of 1996. As per the allegation made
\nin the statement of claim that workman was working as daily wager
\nunder petitioner department from 1989. He has also alleged that he
\nhas worked for more than 240 days in every year and the work was
\ntaken by the petitioner from 6 AM to 6 PM. In the season of summer he
\nhad to stayed for 24 hours in the Gujarat Bhavan and when pilgrims
\ncalled the workman, he had to remain present in the service of
\npilgrims and in the season of summer the petitioner has taken the
\nwork for 24 hours. The respondent has worked in the petitioner
\ndepartment with spirit and faithfully. That there was no
\nunsatisfactory report against him by the petitioner and there was no
\ncomplaint against the respondent, though from 20.9.1991 he was
\nterminated orally by the petitioner department. That before the
\ntermination he was not given notice or notice pay and even not
\nretrenchment compensation was paid to him and it is also alleged that
\nwithout having any fault and having any reason the petitioner
\nterminated him orally on 20.9.1991 which is illegal. That respondent
\nworkman is unemployed from the date of termination. And also alleged
\nthat he is also facing the difficulties for survival for his family.
\nThat it was alleged that before the Labour Court by petitioner herein
\nthat respondent workman was working as daily wager on a daily pay at
\nGujarat Bhavan Mountabu. That when the rush of the pilgrims was
\nincreased in the season of summer, he was called for work. That the
\nrespondent workman has worked for 234 in the year 1990 and in the
\nyear  1991 he has worked for 174 days and therefore as per the
\nGovernment Road and Building Department Resolution No.DRE\/2188\/
\n39009115\/G\/2 dated 30.5.1989. In Issue No.2 that daily wager has to
\ncompleted 240 days in the last year under Section 25(B) of the
\nI.D.Act and to take the benefits by the account from the resolution
\ndated 17.10.1988. Thus the respondent workman has not completed 240
\ndays in both the year therefore he cannot be regularized and there is
\nno question arise to give any benefits. That the petitioner has taken
\nwork from respondent from 8 to 12 am and 14 to 18 pm in a day. The
\npresent petitioner department is a Government department and working
\nas per the rules and regulations of the Government. It is
\nrespectfully submitted that the present petitioner department is
\ndoing activity like social welfare and in the interest of public at
\nlarge. It is also stated that the present petitioner department is
\nnot doing any type of business activity. Therefore, present
\npetitioners do not fall under the definition of the Industry which is
\ndefined under Section 2(j) of the I.D.Act,1947. There is no relation
\nbetween the petitioner and respondent workman as employer and
\nemployee. Therefore, Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain
\nthe said reference and reference filed by present respondent workman
\nwas prayed to rejected on the ground of want of jurisdiction. That
\nrespondent workman was allotted the work as a daily wager, as and
\nwhen  as per the necessity of department. As and when the respondent
\nworkman worked, he was paid salary for that particular period. The
\nrespondent workman has not completed 240 days in any of the calendar
\nyear.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tLearned
\nAGP Ms.Mathur submitted that Labour Court has committed gross error
\nin coming to conclusion that workman has completed 240 days
\ncontinuous service within a preceding 12 months from date of
\ntermination. She also submitted that Labour Court has not properly
\nappreciated evidence which are on record and also not properly
\nappreciated documentary evidence which are on record. She further
\nsubmitted that respondent workman was daily wager and as and when
\nwork is available, he was being called by petitioner and therefore,
\nquestion of termination by petitioner does not arise. She submitted
\nthat from respondent workman, no over time work has been taken by
\npetitioner and his working hours are only 8 hours and not more than
\nthat. She submitted that written statement filed by petitioner vide
\nExh.13 and denying facts as mentioned in statement of claim by
\nworkman. She also submitted that it was denied by petitioner that
\nrespondent was working for 24 hours in the summer season and for 12
\nhours in other seasons. She also submitted that workman was not a
\npermanent employee and not satisfied requirement of Section 25B of
\nthe I.D.Act,1947, even though Labour Court has passed an award
\ncontrary to law laid down by Apex Court. She submitted that
\nI.D.Act,1947 is not applicable to petitioner establishment. For that,
\ncertain decisions have been relied upon by petitioner before Labour
\nCourt as referred in Para.9. She also submitted that Labour Court has
\nnot properly considered question of Industry and decided the matter
\ncontrary to record.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar for respondent workman submitted that before
\nLabour Court vide Exh.46, statement of presence of workman was
\nproduced by petitioner and according to that statement, from
\nMarch,1990 to September,1991, workman was remained in continuous
\nservice and during that period, workman has in all completed 251
\ndays’ service. But at the time of terminating the service of workman,
\nno notice \/ notice pay was paid and no retrenchment benefit was paid
\nto workman by petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that Labour Court
\nhas rightly examined Issue No.2 while considering Exh.46 which has
\nbeen produced by petitioner and accordingly, in case of breach
\ncommitted by petitioner of Section 25F, then Labour Court has rightly
\ngranted reinstatement in favour of respondent workman. For that,
\naccording to him, Labour Court has not committed any error which
\nrequires interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tI
\nhave considered submissions made by both learned advocates and also
\nperused the award passed by Labour Court. The Labour Court has come
\nto conclusion looking to facts that workman was working in Gujarat
\nBhavan, Mountabu where  Gujarat Bhavan is taking charge of room which
\nhas been occupied by certain pilgrims  and also receiving rent from
\nsaid customers and also receiving amount for supplying meals and
\nbreakfast. The Labour Court has also considered that this being a
\ncommercial activity being carried out by petitioner while maintaining
\nGujarat Bhavan Rest House. Therefore, it cannot consider to be a
\nsovereign function of the State. Therefore, Labour Court has
\nconsidered a decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of PWD
\nEmployees’ Union through Secretary Shri M.W.Shinde and Others  v.
\nState of Gujarat, reported in 1987 (2) GLR 1070 where this question
\nhas been examined in detail and come to conclusion that public works
\ndepartment  is an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the
\nI.D.Act,1947. Therefore, contentions raised by learned AGP Ms.Mathur
\ncannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe
\nLabour Court has also considered certain decisions which have been
\nrelied by both parties as discussed in Para.9 and also the Labour
\nCourt has rightly examined Issue No.2 while considering Exh.46 and
\nultimately, has come to conclusion that from March,1990 upto
\nSeptember, 1991, workman was remained in continuous service and
\nconsidering presence details given by petitioner Exh.46, in October,
\n1990 for 27 days, in November,1990 for 26 days, in December, 1990 for
\n26 days, in January, 1991 for 17 days, in February,1991 for 24 days,
\nin March,1991 for 26 days, in April,1991 for 18 days, in May,1991 for
\n12 days, in June for 24 days, in July,1991 for 18 days, in
\nAugust,1991 for 16 days and in September 1991 for 17 days and in all,
\nit comes to 251 days continuous working of respondent workman within
\na preceding 12 months from date of termination. Undisputedly, at the
\ntime when termination order has been passed, Section 25G of the
\nI.D.Act,1947 has not been followed by petitioner. Therefore, order of
\ntermination is ab initio void. The Labour Court has examined factual
\naspect and given finding of fact and decided Issue No.2 that workman
\nhas completed continuous service of 240 days and Section 25F has been
\nviolated. Therefore, order of termination has been set aside by
\nLabour Court. According to my opinion, contentions raised by learned
\nAGP Ms.Mathur cannot be accepted because facts have been  otherwise
\nproved on the basis of documents produced by petitioner vide Exh.46.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn
\ncase when Section 25F has been violated, then workman is entitled the
\nright of reinstatement. In such circumstances,  the Apex Court has
\nconsidered the scope of Section 25F, G and H of the I.D.Act,1947 in
\ncase of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation
\nreported in 2010 (1) Scale 613.  Relevant observations of aforesaid
\ndecision are in Para.13, 14 and 15,  which is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 13.
\nIt is true that in the writ petition filed by it, the corporation did
\nplead that the dispute raised by the appellant was not an industrial
\ndispute because he had not worked continuously for a period of 240
\ndays, the learned Single Judge rightly refused to entertain the same
\nbecause no such argument was advanced before him and also because
\nthat plea is falsified by the averments contained in para 2 of the
\nreply filed on behalf of the corporation to the statement of claim
\nwherein it was admitted that the appellant was engaged as work charge
\nMotor Mate for construction work on 5.3.1986 and he worked in that
\ncapacity and also as Work Munshi from 3.10.1986 and, as mentioned
\nabove, even after expiry of the period of three months’ specified in
\norder dated 5.2.1987, the appellant continued to work till 5.7.1988
\nwhen first notice of retrenchment was issued by the Managing Director
\nof the corporation. Therefore, it was not open for the corporation to
\ncontend that the appellant had not completed 240 days service.
\nMoreover, it is settled law that for attracting the applicability of
\nSection 25-G of the Act, the workman is not required to prove that he
\nhad worked for a period of 240 days during twelve calendar months
\npreceding the termination of his service and it is sufficient  for
\nhim to plead and prove that while effecting retrenchment, the
\nemployer violated the rule of `last come first go’ without any
\ntangible reason. In Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam<\/a> (1996) 5 SCC
\n419, this Court considered an analogous issue in the context of
\nSection 25-H of the Act, which casts a duty upon the employer to give
\nan opportunity to the retrenched workmen to offer themselves for
\nre-employment on a preferential basis. It was argued on behalf of the
\nbank that an offer of re-employment envisaged in Section 25-H should
\nbe confined only to that category of retrenched workmen who are
\ncovered by Section 25-F and a restricted meaning should be given to
\nthe term `retrenchment’ as defined in Section 2(oo). While rejecting
\nthe argument, this Court analysed Section 25-F, 25-H, Rules 77 and 78
\nof the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, referred to Section
\n25-G and held:\n<\/p>\n
“Section
\n25-H then provides for re-employment of retrenched workmen. It
\nsays that when the employer proposes to take into his employ any
\npersons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an
\nopportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to
\noffer    themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen
\nwho offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over
\nother persons. Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central)
\nRules, 1957 prescribe the mode of re-employment. Rule 77 requires
\nmaintenance of seniority list of all workmen in a particular category
\nfrom which retrenchment is contemplated arranged according to
\nseniority of their service in that category and publication of that
\nlist. Rule 78 prescribes the mode of re-employment of retrenched
\nworkmen. The requirement in Rule 78 is of notice in the manner
\nprescribed to every one of all the retrenched workmen eligible to be
\nconsidered for re-employment. Shri Pai contends that Rules 77 and 78
\nare unworkable unless the application of Section 25-H is confined to
\nthe category of retrenched workmen to whom Section 25-F applies. We
\nare unable to accept this contention.\n<\/p>\n
Rule
\n77 requires the employer to maintain a seniority list of workmen in
\nthat particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated
\narranged according to the seniority of their service. The category of
\nworkmen to whom Section 25-F applies is distinct from those to whom
\nit is inapplicable. There is no practical difficulty in maintenance
\nof seniority list of workmen with reference to the particular
\ncategory to which they belong. Rule 77, therefore, does not present
\nany difficulty. Rule 78 speaks of retrenched workmen eligible to be
\nconsidered for filling the vacancies and here also the distinction
\nbased on the category of workmen can be maintained because those
\nfalling in the category of Section 25-F are entitled to be placed
\nhigher than those who do not fall in that category. It is no doubt
\ntrue that persons who have been retrenched after a longer period of
\nservice which places them higher in the seniority list are entitled
\nto be considered for re-employment earlier than those placed lower
\nbecause of a lesser period of service. In this manner a workman
\nfalling in the lower category because of not being covered by Section
\n25-F can claim consideration for re-employment only if an eligible
\nworkman above him in the seniority list is not available. Application
\nof Section 25-H to the other retrenched workmen not covered by
\nSection 25- F does not, in any manner, prejudice those covered by
\nSection 25-F because the question of consideration of any retrenched
\nworkman not covered by Section 25-F would arise only, if and when, no
\nretrenched workman covered by Section 25-F is available for
\nre-employment. There is, thus, no reason to curtail the ordinary
\nmeaning of “retrenched workmen” in Section 25-H because of
\nRules 77 and 78, even assuming the rules framed under the Act could
\nhave that effect.\n<\/p>\n
The
\nplain language of Section 25-H speaks only of re-employment of
\n“retrenched workmen”. The ordinary meaning of the
\nexpression “retrenched workmen” must relate to the wide
\nmeaning of `retrenchment’ given in Section 2(oo). Section 25-F also
\nuses the word `retrenchment’ but qualifies it by use of the further
\nwords “workman … who has been in continuous service for not
\nless than one year”. Thus, Section 25-F does not restrict the
\nmeaning of retrenchment but qualifies the category of retrenched
\nworkmen covered therein by use of the further words<\/p>\n
“workman
\n… who has been in continuous service for not less than one year”.
\nIt is clear that Section 25-F applies to the retrenchment of a
\nworkman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year
\nand not to any workman who has been in continuous service for less
\nthan one year; and it does not restrict or curtail the meaning of
\nretrenchment merely because the provision therein is made only for
\nthe retrenchment of a workman who has been in continuous service for
\nnot less than one year. Chapter V-A deals with all retrenchments
\nwhile Section 25-F is confined only to the mode of retrenchment of
\nworkmen in continuous service for not less than one year. Section
\n25-G prescribes the principle for retrenchment and applies ordinarily
\nthe principle of “last come first go” which is not confined
\nonly to workmen who have been in continuous service for not less than
\none year, covered by Section 25-F.”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
14.
\nThe ratio of the above noted judgment was reiterated in Samishta Dube
\nv. City Board Etawah<\/a> (1999) 3 SCC 14. In that case, the Court
\ninterpreted Section 6-P of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
\nwhich is pari materia to Section 25-G of the Act, and held:\n<\/p>\n
Now
\nthis provision is not controlled by conditions as to length of
\nservice contained in Section 6-N (which corresponds to Section 25-F
\nof the   Industrial Disputes Act, 1947). Section 6-P does not require
\nany particular    period of continuous service as required by Section
\n6-N. In Kamlesh    Singh v. Presiding Officer in a matter which arose
\nunder this very Section    6-P of the U.P. Act, it was so held. Hence
\nthe High Court was wrong in    relying on the fact that the appellant
\nhad put in only three and a half    months of service and in denying
\nrelief. See also in this connection   Central Bank of India v. S.
\nSatyam.\n<\/p>\n
Nor
\nwas the High Court correct in stating that no rule of seniority was
\napplicable to daily-wagers. There is no such restriction in Section
\n6-P of    the U.P. Act read with Section 2(z) of the U.P. Act which
\ndefines  “workman”.\n<\/p>\n
It
\nis true that the rule of “first come, last go” in Section
\n6-P could be  deviated from by an employer because the section uses
\nthe word    “ordinarily”. It is, therefore, permissible for
\nthe employer to deviate from    the rule in cases of lack of
\nefficiency or loss of confidence, etc., as held in    Swadesamitran
\nLtd. v. Workmen. But the<\/a> burden will then be on the    employer to
\njustify the deviation. No such attempt has been made in the
\npresent case. Hence, it is clear that there is clear violation of
\nSection 6-P    of the U.P. Act.\n<\/p>\n
15.
\nThe distinction between Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act was
\nrecently reiterated in Bhogpur Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Harmesh
\nKumar<\/a> (2006) 13 SCC 28, in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
“We
\nare not oblivious of the distinction in regard to the legality of the
\n    order of termination in a case where Section 25-F of the Act
\napplies on     the one hand, and a situation where Section 25-G
\nthereof applies on the  other. Whereas in a case where Section 25-F
\nof the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in
\ncontinuous service of 240     days during twelve months preceding the
\norder of termination; in a case     where he invokes the provisions
\nof Sections 25-G and 25-H thereof he     may not have to establish
\nthe said fact. See: Central Bank of India v. S.    Satyam, Samishtaa
\nDube<\/a> v. City Board, Etawah, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar    Tewari and Jaipur
\nDevelopment Authority v. Ram Sahai.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(See
\n: Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in 2010 (1) Scale 432;
\nKrishna Singh v. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agriculture
\nMarketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana)<\/a> reported in 2010 (2) Scale 848;
\nDirector, Fisheries Terminal Division v. Bhikhubhai Meghjibhai
\nChavda, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1236; Anoop Sharma v. Executive
\nEngineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana), reported in
\n2010-II-CLR-1)<\/p>\n
9.\tIt
\nis necessary to note that service of workman was terminated in the
\nyear 1992, even though Labour Court has not granted any amount of
\nback wages for a long period and only granted continuity of service
\nto workman. Therefore, according to my opinion, Labour Court has
\npassed balanced award where finding of fact has been decided which
\ncannot be disturbed by this Court while exercising the powers under
\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India. (See : State
\nof Haryana & Ors. v. Manoj Kumar<\/a> reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1990,
\nPara.22  to 29.) <\/p>\n
10.\tTherefore,
\naccording to my opinion, Labour Court has not committed any error
\nwhich requires interference by this Court. Therefore, contentions
\nraised by learned AGP Ms.Mathur
\ncannot be accepted and hence, rejected.  Therefore, there is no
\nsubstance in present petition. Accordingly, present petition is
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(H.K.RATHOD,J.)<\/p>\n
(vipul)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/8664\/2009 12\/ 12 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8664 of 2009 ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT – Petitioner(s) Versus DHIRSINH NATHAJI RATHOD – Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS SACHI […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010 - 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\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-22T20:07:11+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-22T20:07:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3248,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-22T20:07:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"State vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010 - 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\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-22T20:07:11+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-22T20:07:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010"},"wordCount":3248,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010","name":"State vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-22T20:07:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dhirsinh-on-11-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Dhirsinh on 11 May, 2010"}]},{"@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\/18008","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=18008"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18008\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}