{"id":184835,"date":"2008-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008"},"modified":"2016-11-07T07:25:37","modified_gmt":"2016-11-07T01:55:37","slug":"manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Manjit Singh vs The Julan Cooperative … on 18 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Manjit Singh vs The Julan Cooperative … on 18 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Civil Writ Petition No.3071 of 1989                              -1-\n\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                   AT CHANDIGARH\n                         ****\n                                    Civil Writ Petition No.3071 of 1989\n                                       Date of Decision:18.12.2008\n\nManjit Singh\n                                                          .....Petitioner\n            Vs.\n\nThe Julan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Julan\nand another\n                                                    .....Respondent\n\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL\n\n\nPresent:-   Mr. A.S. Klar, Advocate for Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate\n            for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.1.\n                         ****\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
HARBANS LAL, J.\n<\/p>\n
            This petition has been moved by Manjit Singh under Articles<\/p>\n
226\/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 9.8.1988<\/p>\n
Annexure P.1.\n<\/p>\n
            The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner<\/p>\n
has put in two years and six months’ service with the respondent- Society as<\/p>\n
Cashier and was drawing Rs.387\/- per month by way of wages, when his<\/p>\n
services were terminated on 8.6.1981. There was a general strike by the<\/p>\n
employees of the Cooperative Societies in Punjab. The notice for this strike<\/p>\n
had been given to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and higher<\/p>\n
authorities. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute that his services had<\/p>\n
been terminated without any notice, charge-sheet, inquiry or compensation.
\n Civil Writ Petition No.3071 of 1989                           -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala vide the impugned award held<\/p>\n
that the workman is not entitled to any relief. This award is liable to be<\/p>\n
quashed in view of the reasons assigned in this petition.<\/p>\n
            I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides<\/p>\n
perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour<\/p>\n
Court with due care and circumspection.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. A.S. Klar, Advocate representing the petitioner urged with<\/p>\n
a good deal of force that the services of the petitioner were admittedly<\/p>\n
terminated without any inquiry, charge-sheet or payment of compensation<\/p>\n
on the ground that he was absent from duty. The learned Presiding Officer,<\/p>\n
Labour Court was not right in holding that the order of termination of<\/p>\n
services of the workman was justified and in order.\n<\/p>\n
            In a bid to counter these arguments, Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of the respondent- Society argued that the petitioner<\/p>\n
remained absent from duty for four months with effect from 8th May, 1981<\/p>\n
for participating in illegal strike in connection with which he remained in<\/p>\n
jail and all this happened without the workman taking any leave from the<\/p>\n
respondent or informing the employer about his arrest in connection with an<\/p>\n
illegal strike. Furthermore, Ex.M3, Ex.M6, Ex.M7 and Ex.M8 tend to show<\/p>\n
that there was arbitration award against him. In these premises, no useful<\/p>\n
purpose would have been served by holding domestic inquiry as the<\/p>\n
petitioner did not explain his conduct before the authorities. Sequelly, the<\/p>\n
impugned award in no manner can be faulted with. He has sought to place<\/p>\n
reliance upon the observations rendered in re: Jaswant Singh v. The State<\/p>\n
of Punjab and others, 1986 Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 314,
\n Civil Writ Petition No.3071 of 1989                              -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
wherein it has been observed that the employees of a cooperative society<\/p>\n
cannot enforce contract of service.\n<\/p>\n
               I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival<\/p>\n
contentions.\n<\/p>\n
               Primarily, it is to be determined as to whether the domestic<\/p>\n
inquiry was required to be held before passing the order in relation to the<\/p>\n
termination of services of the petitioner.           In re: Makhan Singh<\/p>\n
v.Narainpura Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited and<\/p>\n
another, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1892, the appellant- Makhan Singh<\/p>\n
was working as the Secretary of Narainpura Cooperative Agricultural<\/p>\n
Service Society Limited, Narainpura, District Ferozepur. He did not attend<\/p>\n
his duties between May 11, 1981 and May 29, 1981. He had stayed away<\/p>\n
from the work during that period. The Society passed a resolution on May<\/p>\n
30, 1981 terminating his services. On being raised industrial dispute, the<\/p>\n
Labour Court found that the appellant had committed embezzlement and<\/p>\n
that he had absented himself from duties without obtaining leave and the<\/p>\n
termination of the services of the appellant was justified. The Apex Court<\/p>\n
observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
               “On a consideration of the whole material placed before this<\/p>\n
               Court we are of the view that the decision of the management<\/p>\n
               in the instant case to terminate the services of the appellant<\/p>\n
               without holding any domestic enquiry is not a bona fide one.<\/p>\n
               We accordingly hold that the termination of the appellant’s<\/p>\n
               services is unjustified. In the result, we set aside the judgment<\/p>\n
               of the High Court and the award passed by the Labour Court
\n Civil Writ Petition No.3071 of 1989                              -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
             and pass an award directing the Society to reinstate the<\/p>\n
             appellant in its service with effect from May 30, 1981, the date<\/p>\n
             on which the Society passed the resolution terminating the<\/p>\n
             appellants’ services. The appellant shall be treated as being in<\/p>\n
             the service of the Society without any break in his service. He<\/p>\n
             is entitled to all the consequential benefits.     We direct the<\/p>\n
             society to pay full back wages to the appellant from the date of<\/p>\n
             termination of his service till the date of reinstatement.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The facts of the case in hand being somewhat similar with<\/p>\n
Makhan Singh’s case (supra), the decision of the respondent- Society to<\/p>\n
terminate the services of the petitioner without holding any domestic<\/p>\n
inquiry was not bonafide. In re:       I.M.H. Press, Delhi v. Additional<\/p>\n
Industrial Tribunal Delhi, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1168, it has been<\/p>\n
held by the Apex Court “that mere taking part in an illegal strike without<\/p>\n
anything further would not necessarily justify the dismissal of all the<\/p>\n
workmen taking part in the strike. An identical view has been taken by the<\/p>\n
Division Bench of this Court in re: The Coca-Cola Factory Workers<\/p>\n
Union v. The Management of Punjab Beverages Private Limited,<\/p>\n
Chandigarh and<\/a> another, 1987 Labour and Industrial Cases 607, in<\/p>\n
which it has been held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “Mere participation in an illegal and unjustified strike per<\/p>\n
            se is not sufficient to impose punishment of termination of<\/p>\n
            service on a workman. The management must establish, either<\/p>\n
            during the domestic enquiry or failing that before the Tribunal,<\/p>\n
            that the worker in question indulged in vandalism or violence,
\n Civil Writ Petition No.3071 of 1989                             -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
            instigation or sabotage.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Held on facts that the respondent- Management having<\/p>\n
            not held a domestic enquiry before terminating the services of<\/p>\n
            the workmen, nor having adduced any evidence against the<\/p>\n
            workmen regarding their individual misconduct, there is no<\/p>\n
            escape from the conclusion that the order of termination of the<\/p>\n
            services   of   the workmen      passed    by the     respondent-<\/p>\n
            Management was illegal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Held further that the strike was legal and justified and<\/p>\n
            hence the termination of the services of the workmen was,<\/p>\n
            therefore, obviously illegal and unjustified.”<\/p>\n
            In re: Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another v. S.C.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Sharma, 2005(1) Service Cases Today 569, the workman had absented<\/p>\n
from duty. His service was terminated. The Apex Court ruled that “The<\/p>\n
competent authority must record its conclusions with sufficient reasons<\/p>\n
based on some material as to its satisfaction that the holding of inquiry was<\/p>\n
not reasonably practicable failing which the order of dismissal in the<\/p>\n
absence of any inquiry will be vitiated.”\n<\/p>\n
            Harking back to the instant case, no such conclusions have<\/p>\n
been recorded for not holding the domestic inquiry. Sequelly, the impugned<\/p>\n
award is quashed. The services of the petitioner were terminated way back<\/p>\n
in the year 1981. He was drawing Rs.387\/- per month as salary. He had put<\/p>\n
in two years and six months’ service. These facts bear semblance with<\/p>\n
Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy v. Radhey Shyam,<\/a> 2008(4) Service Cases<\/p>\n
Today 841, wherein the workman was appointed on 7.6.1980 on a monthly
\n Civil Writ Petition No.3071 of 1989                           -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
salary of Rs.300\/- to do the work of a junior Clerk. On 4.4.1981, his<\/p>\n
services were terminated.     On an industrial dispute being raised, the<\/p>\n
Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur by an award dated 24.9.1983, set aside the order<\/p>\n
of termination and directed reinstatement of the respondent with effect from<\/p>\n
24.9.1983 with 50% back-wages. The Apex Court held as under:-<\/p>\n
            “It appears to us that in the present case there has not been due<\/p>\n
            application of mind either by the Labour Court or the High<\/p>\n
            Court on the question of reinstatement and payment of 25%<\/p>\n
            back-wages.     The only ground on which reinstatement and<\/p>\n
            continuity of service has been ordered is because the order of<\/p>\n
            termination has been held to be unlawful. Similarly, 25% back-<\/p>\n
            wages have been awarded for the reason that the services of the<\/p>\n
            petitioner were terminated with immediate effect but no<\/p>\n
            specific reason as such has been assigned for the award of the<\/p>\n
            said back-wages. In our opinion, though, illegality of the order<\/p>\n
            of termination is one of the prime considerations for<\/p>\n
            determining the question and quantum of back-wages, but it<\/p>\n
            cannot be the sole criterion therefor. A host of other factors, a<\/p>\n
            few enumerated above, are required to be taken into<\/p>\n
            consideration   before issuing directions in that behalf.<\/p>\n
            Therefore, the award of the Labour Court to that extent cannot<\/p>\n
            be sustained. However, we feel that at this distant time, it<\/p>\n
            would not be fair to the respondent- workman to remit the<\/p>\n
            matter back to the Labour Court or the High Court for fresh<\/p>\n
            consideration of the issue. In the light of the observations
\n Civil Writ Petition No.3071 of 1989                            -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
            referred to supra and having regard to the nature and the period<\/p>\n
            of services rendered by the respondent and the fact that his<\/p>\n
            services were terminated initially on 4th April, 1981 and then on<\/p>\n
            31st January, 1985 and the vicissitudes of long-drawn litigation,<\/p>\n
            the respondent has undergone for over 27 years, interest of<\/p>\n
            justice would be met if instead and in place of direction for<\/p>\n
            reinstatement and back-wages – a sum of Rs.3 lakhs is directed<\/p>\n
            to be paid to the respondent by way of compensation. We direct<\/p>\n
            accordingly. The payment shall be made within eight weeks<\/p>\n
            from today, failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per<\/p>\n
            annum from the date of this judgment till the date of actual<\/p>\n
            payment.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by now,<\/p>\n
the petitioner would have been superannuated. Therefore, in the factual<\/p>\n
scenario, the interest of justice would be met, if instead and in place of<\/p>\n
direction for reinstatement and back-wages, a sum of Rs.3 lacs is directed to<\/p>\n
be paid to the petitioner by way of compensation. I direct accordingly. The<\/p>\n
payment shall be made within eight weeks from today, failing which, it shall<\/p>\n
carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this judgment till<\/p>\n
the date of actual payment.\n<\/p>\n
            Disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
December 18, 2008                                  ( HARBANS LAL )\nrenu                                                    JUDGE\n\nWhether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Manjit Singh vs The Julan Cooperative … on 18 December, 2008 Civil Writ Petition No.3071 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.3071 of 1989 Date of Decision:18.12.2008 Manjit Singh …..Petitioner Vs. The Julan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Julan and another […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-184835","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManjit Singh vs The Julan Cooperative ... on 18 December, 2008 - 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\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manjit Singh vs The Julan Cooperative ... on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-07T01:55:37+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manjit Singh vs The Julan Cooperative … on 18 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-07T01:55:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1678,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Manjit Singh vs The Julan Cooperative ... on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-07T01:55:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manjit Singh vs The Julan Cooperative … on 18 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Manjit Singh vs The Julan Cooperative ... on 18 December, 2008 - 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\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manjit Singh vs The Julan Cooperative ... on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-07T01:55:37+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manjit Singh vs The Julan Cooperative … on 18 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-07T01:55:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008"},"wordCount":1678,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008","name":"Manjit Singh vs The Julan Cooperative ... on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-07T01:55:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manjit-singh-vs-the-julan-cooperative-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manjit Singh vs The Julan Cooperative … on 18 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/184835","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=184835"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184835\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184835"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184835"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184835"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}