{"id":187446,"date":"1963-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963"},"modified":"2018-05-28T11:39:48","modified_gmt":"2018-05-28T06:09:48","slug":"meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963","title":{"rendered":"Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1719, \t\t 1964 SCR (2) 165<\/div>\n
Author: Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMEENGLAS TEA ESTATE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nITS WORKMEN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/02\/1963\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR 1719\t\t  1964 SCR  (2) 165\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1967 SC 122\t (20)\n RF\t    1968 SC 236\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial   Dispute--Requirements   of\t  valid\t   inquiry--\nPrinciples of natural justice--Practice of Supreme Court not\nto enter into evidence to find facts for itself--Case of  no\nevidence.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn January, 1956, there was an incident in which a group  of\nworkmen assaulted the Manager and two Assistant Managers  of\ntile appellant company.\t All the three officers Were  Wound-\ned.  Some  workmen were suspended,  and\t charge-sheets\twere\nserved\ton  them, charging them with  participation  in\t the\nriot.\tAfter  an inquiry the workmen were  dismissed.\t The\ninquiry\t was  held by the Manager and one of  the  Assistant\nManagers,During the inquiry, no witness was examined and  no\nstatement made by any witness was tendered in evidence.\n(1)  [1957] S. C. R. 779,\n166\nThe dispute was first referred to the Labour Court and\tthen\nto  the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.  The Tribunal\t set\naside  the inquiry held by the appellant company  and  asked\nthe company to prove the allegations against each workman de\nnovo  before it.  The company examined five witnesses.\t The\nTribunal  held that orders for dismissal of 15 workmen\twere\njustified  but\tit  ordered  the  remaining  workmen  to  be\nreinstated.   The  company  came to this  Court\t by  special\nleave.\nHeld,  that  the view of the Tribunal was correct  that\t the\ninquiry\t made by the company was not in accordance with\t the\nprinciples  of\tnatural justice.  The inquiry  consisted  of\nputting\t questions to each workman in turn.  No witness\t was\nexamined  in  support of the charge before the\tworkman\t was\nquestioned.  It is an elementary principle that a person who\nis  required  to  answer a charge must\tnot  only  know\t the\naccusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is\nsupported.   He\t must be given a clear chance  to  hear\t the\nevidence  in support of the charge and to put such  relevant\nquestions  by  way of cross-examination as he  desires.\t  He\nmust  also  be\tgiven a chance to  rebut  the  evidence\t led\nagainst him.\nAs  regards two workmen, this Court held that  the  Tribunal\nwas justified in not accepting the findings which  proceeded\nalmost\ton no evidence.\t As regards one workman, this  Court\nheld that as the Tribunal had the opportunity of hearing and\nseeing the two Assistant Managers, this Court would be\tslow\nto  reach a conclusion different from that of the  Tribunal.\nMoreover,  in  such cases, it is not the  practice  of\tthis\nCourt  to enter into evidence with a view to  finding  facts\nfor itself.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 359 of 1962.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the Award dated April 3,\t1961
\nof the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in Case No.
\nVIII-303 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
B.Sen,\tS.C. Mazumdar, D. N. Mukherjee for B. N. Ghosh,\t for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Janardhan Sharma, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
1963.  February 22.  The judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nHIDAYATULLAH  J.—By  this appeal filed  with\tthe  special
\nleave of this Court, by the Meenglas Tea
\n 167<\/span>
\nEstate against its Workmen the Company seeks to challenge an
\naward  dated  April  3 , 1961,\tpronounced  by\tthe  Seventh
\nIndustrial  Tribunal, West Bengal.  The order  of  reference
\nwas  made  by the Government of West Bengal as far  back  as
\nOctober 29, 1957, in respect of the dismissal of 44 workmen.
\nThe issue which was referred was as follows:-
\n“Whether  the  dismissal  of the workmen  mentioned  in\t the
\nattached  list\tis  justified  ?  What\trelief\tby  way\t  of
\nreinstatement and\/or compensation are they entitled to?”
\nFrom  November 5, 1957, to August 17, 1960,  this  reference
\nremained pending before the First Labour Court.\t It was then
\ntransferred  to\t the  Seventh Industrial  Tribunal  and\t the
\nletter\tmade  the impugned award on April 3, 1961.   By\t the
\ntime the award was made two of the workmen (Nos. 12 and\t 37)
\nhad  died and four had been reemployed (Nos. 31, 33, 34\t and\n<\/p>\n
35).   One  of the workmen (No. 22) was not found  to  be  a
\nworkman\t at all.  The Tribunal held that the orders of\tdis-
\nmissal\t of   fourteen\t workmen   were\t  justified   though
\nretrospective effect could not be given to the orders.\t The
\nCompany was ordered to re-instate the remaining workmen\t and
\nto  pay\t them  compensation  in some  cases  (but  not\tall)
\namounting to three months’ wages.  In the present appeal the
\nCompany\t seeks to challenge the award regarding 13 of  those
\nworkmen who have, been ordered to ‘be reinstated.  of  these
\nworkmen the cases of three fall to be considered  separately
\nand  those of the remaining ten can be considered  together.
\nWe shall now give the facts from which the reference arose.
\nThe appellant Meenglas Tea Estate in Jalpaiguri District  of
\nWest  Bengal is owned by Dun-can Brothers Ltd.\tThe  workers
\nbelong\tto  the\t Zilla Chabagan\t Workers’  Union,  Malbazar,
\nDistrict
\n168<\/span>
\njalpaiguri.  On January 18, 1956, there was an ugly incident
\nin  which  a  group of workmen assaulted  the  Manager,\t Mr.
\nMarshall and his two Assistant Managers Mr. Nichols and\t Mr.
\nDhawan.\t  This happened one morning in a section of the\t tea
\ngardens\t where about two hundred workmen had surrounded\t Mr.
\nNichols and were making a violent demonstration.  First\t Mr.
\nDhawan and soon after Mr. Marshall arrived on the scene\t and
\nthe  workmen  surrounded  them also.  In  the  assault\tthat
\nfollowed  these\t three officers\t were  wounded\t Mr.Marshall
\nseriously.  A criminal cage was started against some of\t the
\nrioters but we are not concerned with it.  The Company\talso
\nstarted proceedings against some workmen.  It first issued a
\nnotice of suspension which was to take effect from  February
\n6, 1956, and then served charge-sheets on a large number  of
\nworkmen charging them with participation in . the riot.\t The
\nWork men replied denying their complicity.  The Company then
\nheld  enquiries\t and ordered the dismissal of  a  number  of
\nworkmen\t with effect from January 18, 1956.  A sample  order
\nof dismissal is exhibited as annexure F in the case.  In the
\nenquiry before the Tribunal the Union admitted the  incident
\nthough it said that it was caused by provocation on the part
\nof  the Management.  The Union, however, denied that any  of
\nthe  workmen  who were charged was concerned in\t the  affray
\npointing  out that none of these workmen was  prosecuted  by
\nthe  police.  The enquiry was held by Mr., Marshall and\t Mr.
\nNichols and the record of the proceedings is marked Exhibits
\n17 and 18 series.  That record was produced before us by the
\nappellant  for our perusal.  It was admitted before us\tthat
\nthere  was no further record of evidence for the Company  as
\nnone was recorded.  Exhibit 17 and 18 series are the answers
\nof  the\t workmen  to the charges against  .  them  and\tsuch
\nreplies\t as  they gave to questions put -to them  in  cross-
\nexamination,
\n 169<\/span>
\nThe  Tribunal held that the enquiry was vitiated because  it
\nwas  not held in accordance with the principles\t of  natural
\njustice.    It\tis  contended  that  this   conclusion\t was
\nerroneous.  But we have no doubt about its correctness.\t The
\nenquiry\t consisted of putting questions to each\t workman  in
\nturn.\tNo  witness was examined in support  of\t the  charge
\nbefore\tthe  workman was, questioned.  It is  an  elementary
\nprinciple  that a person who is required to answer a  charge
\nmust know not only the accusation but also the testimony  by
\nwhich the accusation is supported.  He must be given a\tfair
\nchance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and  to
\nput  such relevant questions by way of cross-examination  as
\nhe  desires.   Then he must be given a chance to  rebut\t the
\nevidence led against him.  This is the barest requirement of
\nan  enquiry of this character and this requirements must  be
\nsubstantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can
\nbe  accepted.  A departure from this requirement  in  effect
\nthrows\tthe  burden  upon the person charged  to  repel\t the
\ncharge\twithout\t first making it out against  him.   In\t the
\npresent\t case neither was any witness examined nor  was\t any
\nstatement  made\t by any witness tendered in  evidence.\t The
\nenquiry,  such\tas it was, was made by Mr. Marshall  or\t Mr.
\nNichols who were not only in the positionof  judges  but
\nalso of prosecutors and witnesses.  There Was DO opportunity
\nto the persons charged\t to  cross-examine them\t and  indeed
\nthey  drew  upon  their own knowledge of  the  incident\t and
\ninstead cross-examined the persons charged.  This was such a
\ntravesty  of  the principles of natural\t ,justice  that\t the
\nTribunal was justified in rejecting the findings and  asking
\nthe Company to prove the allegation against each workman  de
\nnovo before it.\n<\/p>\n
In the enquiry which the Tribunal held the Company  examined
\nfive  witnesses including Mr. Marshall, Mr. Nichols and\t Mr.
\nDhawan,\t who  were the eye-witnesses.  In view of  the\tfact
\nthat the
\n170<\/span>
\nenquiry\t was  being made into an incident which\t took  place
\nfour  and  a half years ago the Tribunal  in  assessing\t the
\nevidence held that it would not accept that any workman\t was
\nincriminated  unless at least two witnesses deposed  against
\nhim.   Some of the workmen got the benefit of this  approach
\nand  it is now contended that the Tribunal was in  error  in
\ninsisting  upon corroboration before accepting the  evidence
\nof  a single witness.  Reference in this connection is\tmade
\nto s. 134 of the Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872) which\tlays
\ndown  that  no particular number of witnesses shall  in\t any
\ncase  be  required for the proof of any fact.  It is  not  a
\nquestion  of an error in applying the Evidence Act.   It  is
\nrather a question of proceeding with caution in a case where
\nadmittedly  many  persons  were involved  and  the  incident
\nitself took place a very long time ago.\t The Tribunal  acted
\nwith caution and did not act upon uncorroborated  testimony.
\nIt  is\tpossible,  that the evidence  against  some  of\t the
\npersons to whom the benefit has gone, might be cogent enough
\nfor  acceptance, but the question is not one of believing  a
\nsingle\twitness in respect of any particular workman but  of
\ntreating all workmen alike and following a method which\t was
\nlikely to eliminate reasonably chances of faulty observation
\nor incorrect recollection.  On the whole, it cannot be\tsaid
\nthat  the  Tribunal  adopted  an  approach  which  made\t  it
\nimpossible for the company to prove its case.  It followed a
\nstandard which in the circumstances was prudent.  We do\t not
\nthink  that for this reason an interference is\tcalled\tfor.
\nSince no other point was argued the appeal of the Company in
\nrespect of the ten workmen, who were alleged to be concerned
\nin the occurrence of January 18, 1956, must be dismissed.
\nThis  brings  us to the consideration of the  three  special
\ncases.\t They  concern Dasarath Barick (No. 25),  Lea  Bichu
\n(No.  26)  and Nester Munda (No. 27).  Dasarath\t Barick\t was
\nsaid to have threatened the
\n 171<\/span>
\nloyal workers and to have prevented them from work on  March
\n15,  1956.  Lea Bichu was said to have forced the  chowkidar
\nto hand over the keys of the gate to him on the same day and
\nto  have  locked  the  gate with a  view  to  hampering\t the
\nmovement of workmen.  The Tribunal held that the enquiry  in
\nboth  the cases was not a proper enquiry and the  conclusion
\nwas not acceptable.  Here, again no witness was examined  in
\nthe enquiry to prove the two occurrences and even before the
\nTribunal  there\t was  no evidence against  them\t except\t the
\nuncorroborated\ttestimony of Mr. Mar-shall.  No\t worker\t was
\nexamined to prove that he was threatened by Dasarath  Barick
\nor to show that it was Lea Bichu who had taken the keys from
\nthe  chowkidar\tand  locked -the gate.\t In  view  of  these
\ncircumstances  the Tribunal was justified in  not  accepting
\nthe  findings  which proceeded almost on  no  evidence.\t  We
\nagree with the Tribunal that no case was made out before the
\nTribunal for the dismissal of Dasarath Barick and Lea Bichu.
\nThe last case is of Nester Munda who is the Secretary of the
\nUnion.,’  It  was alleged against him that on,\tJanuary\t 16,
\n1956, he had abused Mr. Nichols and had demonstrated at- the
\nhead of a hostile group of workmen.  Here, again, no  proper
\nenquiry\t was held and the conclusion reached at the  enquiry
\nby the Company was not acceptable.  The Tribunal, therefore,
\nenquired  into\tthe case for itself.  Mr.  Nichols  and\t Mr.
\nDhawan gave evidence which the Tribunal was not prepared  to
\naccept.\t  It pointed out that their testimony conflicted  on
\nvital  points.\t Since the Tribunal had the  opportunity  of
\nhearing\t and seeing Mr. Nichols and Mr. Dhawan we should  be
\nslow  to  reach\t a conclusion different\t from  that  of\t the
\nTribunal.   In\taddition,  in  such cases,  it\tis  not\t the
\npractice of this Court to enter into evidence with a view to
\nfinding\t facts\tfor  itself.  Following\t this  well  settled
\npractice we see no reason
\n172<\/span>
\nto interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal.
\nThe  result is that the appeal fails and is  dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1719, 1964 SCR (2) 165 Author: Hidayatullah Bench: Hidayatullah, M. PETITIONER: MEENGLAS TEA ESTATE Vs. RESPONDENT: ITS WORKMEN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/02\/1963 BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SHAH, J.C. CITATION: 1963 AIR 1719 1964 […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMeenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963 - 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\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963\" \/>\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=\"1963-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-28T06:09:48+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-28T06:09:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963\"},\"wordCount\":1719,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963\",\"name\":\"Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-28T06:09:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963\"}]},{\"@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":"Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963 - 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\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-28T06:09:48+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963","datePublished":"1963-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-28T06:09:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963"},"wordCount":1719,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963","name":"Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-28T06:09:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenglas-tea-estate-vs-its-workmen-on-22-february-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963"}]},{"@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\/187446","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=187446"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187446\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}