{"id":184338,"date":"2007-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007"},"modified":"2014-11-01T19:02:44","modified_gmt":"2014-11-01T13:32:44","slug":"t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"T.Baburaj vs The Hindustan Insecticides … on 19 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.Baburaj vs The Hindustan Insecticides … on 19 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 32321 of 2006(W)\n\n\n1. T.BABURAJ, DEPUTY PRODUCTION MANAGER\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES LIMITED,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE CHIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR,\n\n3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P&A),\n\n4. K.K.JOSEPH, GENERAL MANAGER,\n\n5. SRI.BALASUBRAMANIAN,\n\n6. K.K.DHAR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN\n\n Dated :19\/02\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                             K.K.DENESAN, J\n\n                       ---------------------------------------\n\n                      W.P.(C)NO.32321  of 2006\n\n                       ---------------------------------------\n\n\n\n           Dated this the 19th   day  of  February, 2007\n\n\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The   petitioner   has   been   working   as   Deputy   Production<\/p>\n
Manager   (Technical)   under   the   respondents.   He     challenges<\/p>\n
Ext.P3  order transferring him from the Udyogamandal Unit of the<\/p>\n
first   respondent   to   Bathinda     in   Punjab   passed   by   the   third<\/p>\n
respondent.   The   petitioner   is   Serial   No.3   in   that   order.   The<\/p>\n
impugned   order   shows   that   besides   the   petitioner,   one   Mathew<\/p>\n
Varghese   has   been   transferred   from   Udyogamandal   Unit   to<\/p>\n
Rasayani   Unit,   Maharashtra,                  Sri.R.K.Goswami   and   Sri.<\/p>\n
A.K.Srivastava from Rayasani Unit to Udyogamandal Unit.<\/p>\n
      2.   Ext.P3   is   challenged   mainly   on   the   ground   that   it   is<\/p>\n
vitiated   by   malafides.   The   circumstances   under   which   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   feels   that   his     transfer   from   Udyogamandal   Unit   to<\/p>\n
Bathinda is vitiated by malafides, are the following:<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No. 32321\/2006                                      :2:<\/span><\/p>\n
       3.   The   petitioner   is   the   Vice   President   of   Hindustan<\/p>\n
Insecticides   Limited   Officers   Association.   The   President   of   the<\/p>\n
Association is a Member of Parliament Dr.Sebastian Paul. As the<\/p>\n
Vice President of the Association, the  petitioner had to take very<\/p>\n
many causes in order to protect the interest of the officers as well<\/p>\n
as   that   of   HIL.   Recently   the   Company   proposed   to   erect   an<\/p>\n
Incinerator.   In   order   to   erect   the   said   Incinerator   tenders   were<\/p>\n
invited by the Company and thereafter the contract was awarded<\/p>\n
to M\/s HAAT, which is a Bangalore based Company.  Respondents<\/p>\n
4 and 5  played a dubious role in awarding contract to M\/s HAAT.<\/p>\n
The   decision   to   award   contract   to   M\/s   HAAT   was   taken   by   a<\/p>\n
Committee which consisted of respondents 4 and 5 as well as the<\/p>\n
petitioner and other few officers. After the award of the contract<\/p>\n
to   M\/s   HAAT,   during   the   execution   of   the   contract   M\/s   HAAT<\/p>\n
committed various procedural irregularities. The   materials used<\/p>\n
for  erection   of  Incinerator   was   of   low   quality  and  far  below  the<\/p>\n
standards   required   to   be   maintained   by   the   Company   as   laid<\/p>\n
down in the conditions of the contract. The petitioner wanted  to<\/p>\n
protect   the   interest   of   the   Company   and   objected   to   the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No. 32321\/2006                                      :3:<\/span><\/p>\n
execution   of   the   contract   by   M\/s   HAAT.   When   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
raised his objection in the execution of the erection of Incinerator<\/p>\n
by M\/s HAAT, respondents 4 and 5 who had given cart-blanche to<\/p>\n
M\/s   HAAT   to   execute   the   contract   as   they   like   on   extraneous<\/p>\n
considerations,   removed   the   petitioner   from   the   Committee   by<\/p>\n
divesting   of   his   duties   as   the   Deputy   Protection   Manager<\/p>\n
(Technical). Thereafter respondents 4 and 5 sanctioned payments<\/p>\n
to  M\/s  HAAT  in  gross  violation  of  the conditions  of  the  contract<\/p>\n
for   personal   gains   and   on   extraneous   considerations.   The<\/p>\n
petitioner,   on   coming   to   know   of   the   above   illegal   activities   of<\/p>\n
respondents 4 and 5 submitted a representation (Ext.P1) through<\/p>\n
the   Secretary   of   the   Association   to   the   4th  respondent.   The<\/p>\n
submission of Ext.P1 was not welcomed by respondents 4 and 5<\/p>\n
and   they   found   it     inconvenient   to   perpetuate   their   illegality.<\/p>\n
Regarding   the   erection   of   Incinerator   in   the   Company   by   M\/s<\/p>\n
HAAT and the payments made there were widespread allegations<\/p>\n
which   were     reported   in   all   the   leading   Newspapers.   The<\/p>\n
petitioner as the Vice President of the Association as well as other<\/p>\n
Officers   of   the   Association   compelled   the   4th  respondent   to<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No. 32321\/2006                                      :4:<\/span><\/p>\n
convene   a   meeting   to   clarify   the   entire   issue.   Hence   the   4th<\/p>\n
respondent left with no other remedy was compelled to convene<\/p>\n
a   meeting   in   the   3rd  week   of   July,   2006.   In   the   said   meeting<\/p>\n
majority of the officers participated and the petitioner as the Vice<\/p>\n
President  of   the  Association  had  to  ask  several   questions   which<\/p>\n
were  inconvenient to  the 4th  respondent.  Consequently,   the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent   himself   had   to   convene   a   meeting   in   the   month   of<\/p>\n
September,  2006.   In  the  said  meeting  the  petitioner  as   well  as<\/p>\n
other   Officers   brought   to   the   notice   of   the   Chairman   and<\/p>\n
Managing   Director,   the   illegalities   committed   by   respondents   4<\/p>\n
and 5   in  connection  with  the  erection  of  the  Incinerator   by  M\/s<\/p>\n
HAAT. Regarding the entire issue of erecting the Incinerator and<\/p>\n
the   allegations   of   corruption   which   were     in   air,   the   Central<\/p>\n
Bureau   of   Investigation   (CBI)   conducted   an   investigation.   Raids<\/p>\n
were     conducted   in   the   residence   as   well   as   the   offices   of<\/p>\n
respondents 4, 5 and 6 and the CBI being convinced that there<\/p>\n
was   corruption   in   the   erection   of   Incinerator   by   M\/s   HAAT,<\/p>\n
registered a FIR against respondents 4 to 6 as well as the Officers<\/p>\n
of M\/s HAAT.\n<\/p>\n
\nW.P.(C)No. 32321\/2006                                      :5:<\/span><\/p>\n
       4. The above allegations made by the petitioner  are sought<\/p>\n
to be countered   by the sworn averments made in the   affidavit<\/p>\n
filed   on   behalf   of   respondents   1   and     3.   The   counter   affidavit<\/p>\n
while denying the allegations in the W.P.(C) inter alia says<\/p>\n
        “…………..   the   Bhathinda   Unit   of   the   Company   was<\/p>\n
        commissioned in 2003. The Unit employs around 300<\/p>\n
        personnel   and   there   existed   a   requirement   of   a<\/p>\n
        Chemical   Engineer   at   the   level   of   Deputy   Manager.<\/p>\n
        The   Unit   operates   full-scale   formulation   facilities<\/p>\n
        handling   various   chemicals   and   qualified   Chemical<\/p>\n
        Engineer   at   senior   level   is   an   absolute   necessity   for<\/p>\n
        safe operations of the plants. It was in order to fill up<\/p>\n
        the said vacancy, the Head Office of the Company was<\/p>\n
        considering   the   availability   of   suitable   person   with<\/p>\n
        qualification   in   Chemical   Engineering   and     adequate<\/p>\n
        experience.   While   considering   the   suitability   of   the<\/p>\n
        candidates available, the Head Office also considered<\/p>\n
        whether   such   candidates   could   be   spared   from   their<\/p>\n
        present   assignments.   While   so,   the   Head   Office<\/p>\n
        decided that the petitioner was the ideal person to be<\/p>\n
        transferred   and   posted   without   affecting   the<\/p>\n
        production   or   other   work  of   the  Udyogamandal   Unit.<\/p>\n
        It   was   also   decided   that   suitable   alternate<\/p>\n
        arrangements will be made by assigning the duties of<\/p>\n
        the post that were discharged by the petitioner to the<\/p>\n
        existing Officers of the Units.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel<\/p>\n
on either side, I am of the view that it may not be safe to draw<\/p>\n
the   inference   that   the     petitioner’s   transfer   is   the   result   of   the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No. 32321\/2006                                      :6:<\/span><\/p>\n
alleged ill will or displeasure entertained by   the respondents, as<\/p>\n
apprehended by the petitioner. The fact that certain contingencies<\/p>\n
arose in the  wake of the   implementation and operation of   the<\/p>\n
first   respondent   Company   in   different   parts   of   the   country,   is<\/p>\n
evident from the pleadings of the respondents. Bhathinda Unit of<\/p>\n
the   company   was   commissioned   in   2003.   That     Unit   employs<\/p>\n
around   300   personnel.   The   Company   is   in   need   of   a   Chemical<\/p>\n
Engineer at the level of Deputy Manager. While dealing with the<\/p>\n
problem of filling up the vacancy of a Chemical Engineer in that<\/p>\n
Unit, the question of transferring a duly qualified Manager came<\/p>\n
up   for   consideration.   It   was   found   that   the   petitioner’s   service<\/p>\n
would  be  useful  for  the  effective  operation  of  the Bathinda   Unit<\/p>\n
and Ext.P3 order was passed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.  It is pertinent to note that it is  not the petitioner alone<\/p>\n
who   has   been     transferred   from   Udyogamandal   Unit   to   a   place<\/p>\n
outside the State.  Sl.No.1 in  Ext.P3 has been  transferred to the<\/p>\n
State  of   Maharashtra.  The  allegation  that  the  active role played<\/p>\n
by the petitioner in bringing out certain misdeeds on the part of<\/p>\n
some of the officers has led   to the impugned transfer does not<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No. 32321\/2006                                      :7:<\/span><\/p>\n
appear to be the basic reason for passing an order in the nature<\/p>\n
of Ext.P3. Probably, because of the role played by him, as stated<\/p>\n
above,  he     might   have  entertained  the  bonafide   feeling  that   he<\/p>\n
has been chosen for a transfer to a far away place. Such feelings<\/p>\n
alone cannot form the foundation for demolishing Ext.P3.  In the<\/p>\n
above  view  of the  matter, the  contention  that  Ext.P3  is  vitiated<\/p>\n
by   malafides   is     rejected.   I   do   not   propose   to   interfere   with<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 order. The prayer is declined.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       7. The petitioner has been on leave ever since he has been<\/p>\n
served with Ext.P3 order. As rightly submitted by the Counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner, there is good reason for him to remain on leave.<\/p>\n
Personal reasons coupled with   the interim order passed by this<\/p>\n
Court   on   5.12.2006     justifies   his   conduct.     Now   that   I   have<\/p>\n
declined   to   interfere   with   Ext.P3,   the   petitioner   has   to   go   and<\/p>\n
take   charge   of   the   assignment   given   to   him   as   per   Ext.P3.<\/p>\n
Standing  Counsel   for   the   respondents   submits   that   immediately<\/p>\n
on certain important and urgent works getting executed, it will be<\/p>\n
open to the petitioner to apply for leave and also for re-transfer<\/p>\n
to Udyogamandal, if he so chooses. I think, the petitioner will be<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No. 32321\/2006                                      :8:<\/span><\/p>\n
well   advised   to   join   duty,   discharge   the   essential   works   to   be<\/p>\n
carried out there, and immediately thereafter, to apply for leave.<\/p>\n
Simultaneously,  he can apply for re-transfer to Udyogamandal. I<\/p>\n
make it clear that such application filed by the petitioner shall be<\/p>\n
considered   with   due   compassion   since   he   is   directed   to   take<\/p>\n
charge   of   a   work   far   away   from   his   native   place,   for,     it   will<\/p>\n
always be the desire of any sensible person to come back to his<\/p>\n
native place and to serve the employer in a peaceful atmosphere<\/p>\n
during the rest of his service period.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        With   the   above   observations,   the   writ   petition   is   disposed<\/p>\n
of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                               K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
css
\n   \/<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No. 32321\/2006                                      :9:<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.Baburaj vs The Hindustan Insecticides … on 19 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 32321 of 2006(W) 1. T.BABURAJ, DEPUTY PRODUCTION MANAGER … Petitioner Vs 1. THE HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES LIMITED, … Respondent 2. THE CHIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P&A), 4. K.K.JOSEPH, GENERAL MANAGER, […]<\/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-184338","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.Baburaj vs The Hindustan Insecticides ... on 19 February, 2007 - 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\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Baburaj vs The Hindustan Insecticides ... on 19 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-01T13:32:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Baburaj vs The Hindustan Insecticides … on 19 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-01T13:32:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1510,\"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\\\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007\",\"name\":\"T.Baburaj vs The Hindustan Insecticides ... on 19 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-01T13:32:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Baburaj vs The Hindustan Insecticides … on 19 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"T.Baburaj vs The Hindustan Insecticides ... on 19 February, 2007 - 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\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Baburaj vs The Hindustan Insecticides ... on 19 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-01T13:32:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Baburaj vs The Hindustan Insecticides … on 19 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-01T13:32:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007"},"wordCount":1510,"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\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007","name":"T.Baburaj vs The Hindustan Insecticides ... on 19 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-01T13:32:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-baburaj-vs-the-hindustan-insecticides-on-19-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Baburaj vs The Hindustan Insecticides … on 19 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/184338","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=184338"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184338\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184338"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184338"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184338"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}