{"id":196637,"date":"1974-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974"},"modified":"2015-02-09T07:47:52","modified_gmt":"2015-02-09T02:17:52","slug":"remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974","title":{"rendered":"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1915, \t\t  1975 SCR  (2)\t 17<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Goswami<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Goswami, P.K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nREMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHIRU R. JAMBULINGAM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/09\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR 1915\t\t  1975 SCR  (2)\t 17\n 1975 SCC  (3) 254\n\n\nACT:\nTamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, s. 41 (1) Scope  of\nCommissioner's power in appeal.\nPractice and Procedure-Appellant contending that  respondent\nis  not\t protected workman before the  Industrial  Tribunal-\nLater raising the plea in the court that he was a  protected\nworkman\t to oust the jurisdiction of the Commissioner  under\nthe Tamil Nadu Shops &amp; Establishments Act-If can be  allowed\nto raise the plea.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   respondent  was  a  typewriter  mechanic\t under\t the\nappellant.  He was charged with (1) having absented  himself\non  a  particular day without leave and\t without  sufficient\ncause,\tand (2) that he on that day did some private  repair\nwork  of  a typewriter.\t A domestic enquiry  was  held,\t the\ncharges\t were found to be established and he was  dismissed.\nSince an industrial dispute was then pending, the  appellant\napplied\t to  the  Industrial Tribunal for  approval  of\t the\ndismissal  order  under\t s. 33 (2)  (b)\t of  the  Industrial\nDisputes Act.  The respondent contended before the  Tribunal\nthat  he  was  a protected workman and\tthat  therefore\t the\nappellant  should  have\t sought prior  permission  under  s.\n33(3).\t The  Tribunal rejected the  respondent's  plea\t and\napproved the dismissal order.  Meanwhile, the respondent had\nappealed  to  the Commissioner under s. 41(2) of  the  Tamil\nNadu Shops and Establishments Act, and the Commissioner held\nthe  first  charge  proved, but not the\t second\t charge\t and\nallowed the appeal holding that the punishment of  dismissal\nwas disproportionate to the gravity of the offence proved.\nIn  appeal to this Court, the appellant contended  that\t (1)\nthe  respondent\t having claimed to be  a  protected  workman\nshould have applied under s. 33A of the Industrial  Disputes\nAct  and his appeal to the Commissioner under the Shops\t Act\nwas  misconceived, (2) the Commissioner failed\tto  consider\nsome  evidence,\t and (3) the Commissioner  should  not\thave\ninterfered with the order passed in the domestic enquiry.\nDismissing the appeal,\nHELD  :\t (1) (a) The appellant having contended\t before\t the\nIndustrial Tribunal that the respondent was not a  protected\nworkman\t cannot\t be allowed to raise the plea of  ouster  of\njurisdiction. [19C-D]\n(b)  Further, the appellant had not raised any objection  to\nthe jurisdiction of the Commissioner to hear the appeal\t but\nsubmitted to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. [19D]\n(2)  There   is\t no  basis  for\t the  contention  that\t the\nCommissioner ignored any evidence. [19G]\n(3)  The  jurisdiction of the Commissioner is  an  appellate\njurisdiction  and  is  of wider scope  unlike  that  of\t the\nTribunal  under a. 33 of the Industrial Disputes  Act.\t The\nCommissioner, was therefore, competent to rehear the matter,\ntake  additional evidence if necessary, and come to his\t own\nconclusion  after a re-appreciation of the  evidence.  [19H-\n20B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1764  of<br \/>\n1972.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby Special Leave from the Judgment and\tOrder  dated<br \/>\nthe  16th November, 1971 of the Additional Commissioner\t for<br \/>\nWorkman&#8217;s Compensation, Madurai in T.N.S.E. Appeal No. 8  of<br \/>\n1971.\n<\/p>\n<p>3-251 Sup.  CI\/75<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">18<\/span><br \/>\nM.   Natesan, M. L. Verma and D. N. Gupta for the appellant.<br \/>\nM.   K. Ramamurth and J. Ramamurthi for the respondent,<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nGOSWAMI,  J.   This  appeal by\tspecial\t leave\tis  directed<br \/>\nagainst\t the  order  of\t the  Additional  Commissioner\t for<br \/>\nWorkmen&#8217;s  Compensation, Madurai (briefly the  commissioner)<br \/>\nin an appeal before him lodged by the respondent against the<br \/>\norder  of his dismissal passed by the appellant\t company  on<br \/>\nDecember 29, 1970.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent was in employment under the appellant company<br \/>\nat the Tiruchirapalli Branch as a typewriter mechanic  since<br \/>\n1950.\tThe charges against him were that he was  absent  on<br \/>\nNovember 2 1970, without leave and without sufficient  cause<br \/>\nand  also  secondly that he was on the\tsaid  day  privately<br \/>\ndoing  some  repair  work of a typewriter  in  the  premises<br \/>\nbelonging    to\t  the\tEswari\t Institute   of\t   Commerce,<br \/>\nTiruchirapalli.\t  The respondent was directed to show  cause<br \/>\non November 17, 1970 and was placed under suspension.  After<br \/>\nreceipt of Ms reply to the charge-sheet, a domestic  enquiry<br \/>\nwas  held in which witnesses were examined.  The  respondent<br \/>\nexamined  only\thimself\t on his\t behalf\t and  the  appellant<br \/>\nexamined  three\t witnesses  including  the  Manager  of\t the<br \/>\nTiruchirapalli Branch and the company&#8217;s doctor.\t The Enquiry<br \/>\nOfficer\t found\tboth the charges to be\testablished  and  on<br \/>\nreceipt\t of  his report the management passed  an  order  of<br \/>\ndismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Since  an  industrial dispute was pending  at  the  relevant<br \/>\ntime, the management simultaneously submitted an application<br \/>\nto  the\t Industrial Tribunal, Madras, for  approval  of\t the<br \/>\norder  of  dismissal  under  section  33  (2)  (b)  of\t the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (briefly the I. D. Act).\t The<br \/>\nrespondent  took the plea before the Tribunal that he was  a<br \/>\nprotected workman and hence his dismissal was illegal in the<br \/>\nabsence of prior permission from the Tribunal under  section<br \/>\n33(3)  of the I.D. Act.\t The Tribunal, however,\t refused  to<br \/>\naccept\tthis  plea  and held that he  was  not\ta  protected<br \/>\nworkmen.   The\tTribunal  further  approved  the  order\t  of<br \/>\ndismissal by its order dated February 18, 1971.<br \/>\nPrior  to  the\ttermination of the  proceedings\t before\t the<br \/>\nTribunal  on February 18, 1971, the respondent had filed  an<br \/>\nappeal\tbefore the Commissioner under section 41(2)  of\t the<br \/>\nTamil  Nadu Shops and Establishment, Act (briefly the  Shops<br \/>\nAct).  The Commissioner after a perusal of all the documents<br \/>\nproduced  by  the parties before him  took  some  additional<br \/>\nevidence  and after hearing the parties set aside the  order<br \/>\nof  dismissal  by the impugned order of November  16,  1971.<br \/>\nThe  Commissioner held that the first charge namely that  he<br \/>\nwas   absent  without  leave  on  November  2,\t 1970,\t was<br \/>\nestablished while the second charge about doing repair\twork<br \/>\nin   the   premise-,  of  Eswari  Institute   of   Commerce,<br \/>\nTiruchirapalli, was not proved.\t The Commissioner also\theld<br \/>\nthat the order of dismissal was absolutely disproportionate,<br \/>\nto the gravity of the offence proved.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">19<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Mr  Natesan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of\t the<br \/>\nappellant, submits in the forefront of his argument that  as<br \/>\na special forum relief has been provided under the I.D. Act,<br \/>\nnamely,\t for  making an application under section  33(A)  of<br \/>\nthat  Act, the remedy resorted to the respondent  under\t the<br \/>\nShops Act must be held to be excluded.\tThe learned  counsel<br \/>\nsubmits\t that  since the respondent claimed to\tbe  a  acted<br \/>\nworkman\t before the Tribunal, he should have made an  appli-<br \/>\ncation\tunder section 33(A) for violation of section  33  of<br \/>\nthe  I.D.  Act before it.  The respondent  having  chosen  a<br \/>\nwrong forum is precluded challenging the order of  dismissal<br \/>\nbefore the Commissioner, says Natesan.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is rather extraordinary that even though the Commissioner<br \/>\nat  he\tinstance of the appellant had rejected the  plea  of<br \/>\nprotected workman, the management now seeks to raise a\tplea<br \/>\nof  Custer  of jurisdiction before the Commissioner  on\t the<br \/>\nself-same  ground.  This, in our pinion, cannot be  allowed.<br \/>\nBesides, the appellant submitted to, the jurisdiction of the<br \/>\nCommissioner  and  had\tnot raised  any,  objection  to\t its<br \/>\njurisdiction to hear the appeal.  That being so we, have not<br \/>\nalloWed\t  the\tlearned\t counsel  to  raise  the   plea\t  of<br \/>\njurisdiction  before us in this Court for the first time  in<br \/>\nthis  appeal.  We may, however, observe that  while even  an<br \/>\norder of approval is passed under section 35(2) of the\tI.D.<br \/>\nAct, an industrial dispute can be raised by either party and<br \/>\nan appropriate reference can be later made by the Government<br \/>\nunder  section 10 of the I.D. Act.  The order  passed  under<br \/>\nsection\t  41  of  the  Shops  Act  in  appeal\tbefore\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner is, on the other hand, binding on the  employer<br \/>\nand  the  employee  under sub-section (3)  of  hat  section.<br \/>\nSince, however, we have not permitted the learned counsel to<br \/>\nargue the matter, it is not necessary to pursue this  matter<br \/>\nany further.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  learned counsel next contends that\t the  Commissioner&#8217;s<br \/>\norder  is perverse as he absolutely failed to  consider\t the<br \/>\nevidence  of  the  doctor  a perusal  of  which\t would\thave<br \/>\ncertainly  led\tto  a contrary conclusion.   We\t were  taken<br \/>\nthrough the evidence of the doctor before the\tCommissioner<br \/>\nand  we\t find that he stated during  cross-examination\tthat<br \/>\n&#8220;the Branch Manager Mr. Padmanabhan called on me at about 11<br \/>\na.m.  on 2-11-1970&#8221;.  We find that the case  of\t Padmanabhan<br \/>\nwas  that at about 11. 10 A.M. on November 2, 1970,  he\t saw<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t working on one of the\ttypewriters  in\t the<br \/>\npremises  of  the Eswari Institute of Commerce.\t  There\t is,<br \/>\ntherefore,  absolutely\tno  foundation\tfor  the  contention<br \/>\nadvanced  by the learned counsel that the  Tribunal  ignored<br \/>\nthe evidence of the doctor.  On the other hand his  evidence<br \/>\nran counter to the stand taken by the management.<br \/>\nMr. Natesan also submitted that the Commissioner should\t not<br \/>\nhave  interfered  with\tthe order  passed  in  the  domestic<br \/>\nenquiry\t since there was so violation of the  principles  of<br \/>\nnatural\t  justice  nor\twas  the  finding   perverse.\t The<br \/>\njurisdiction   of   the\t  Commissioner\t is   an   appellate<br \/>\njurisdiction  and  is  of wider scope  unlike  that  of\t the<br \/>\nTribunal in an application under section 33 of the I.D. Act.<br \/>\nThe Commissioner is<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">20<\/span><br \/>\ncompetent  to rehear the matter completely and come  to\t its<br \/>\nown conclusion after re-appreciation of the evidence.  There<br \/>\nis no legal bar in entertaining additional evidence if\tthat<br \/>\nis  necessary in the interest of justice.  The rule  of\t law<br \/>\nwhich  has  been  laid down by this  Court  with  regard  to<br \/>\njurisdiction  of the Industrial Tribunal in  an\t application<br \/>\nunder  section\t33 of the I.D. Act in interfering  with\t the<br \/>\norder  of  dismissal passed in a domestic  enquiry,  is\t not<br \/>\napplicable to the case of an appeal before the\tCommissioner<br \/>\nprovided  for  under section 41 of the Shops Act.   We\tare,<br \/>\ntherefore,  unable to accept the submission ff. the  learned<br \/>\ncounsel.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.S.\t\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">21<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1915, 1975 SCR (2) 17 Author: P Goswami Bench: Goswami, P.K. PETITIONER: REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: THIRU R. JAMBULINGAM DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/09\/1974 BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN [&hellip;]<\/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-196637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1974-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-09T02:17:52+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\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-09T02:17:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974\"},\"wordCount\":1178,\"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\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974\",\"name\":\"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-09T02:17:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974\"}]},{\"@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":"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-09T02:17:52+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\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974","datePublished":"1974-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-09T02:17:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974"},"wordCount":1178,"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\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974","name":"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-09T02:17:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-thiru-r-jambulingam-on-5-september-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs Thiru R. Jambulingam on 5 September, 1974"}]},{"@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\/196637","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=196637"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196637\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}