{"id":199008,"date":"2009-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-30T09:54:13","modified_gmt":"2017-07-30T04:24:13","slug":"shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shree Krishna Paper Mill And … vs Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Shree Krishna Paper Mill And … vs Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2009<\/div>\n
C.W.P No.14488 of 1997                                      -1-\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND\n             HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                            C.W.P No.14488 of 1997\n                            Date of Decision: 03.08.2009\n\nShree Krishna Paper Mill and Industries Limited, Bahadurgarh, T-4,\nIndustrial Area, Bahadurgarh (Haryana)         .....Petitioner\n\n                              Versus\n\nPresiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and\nothers                                          .....Respondents<\/pre>\n
Present: Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate
\n         for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
         Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate
\n         for respondents.<\/p>\n
\n\n2.       C.O.C.P. No.223 of 2003\n\nOm Parkash                                      ........Petitioner\n                              Versus\n\nShri A.K. Sharma                                ....Respondent\n\nPresent: Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate\n         for the petitioner.\n         Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate\n         for the respondent.\n\nCORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN\n\n<\/pre>\n
1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
\n       the judgment ? Yes\n<\/p>\n
2.     To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes\n<\/p>\n
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes\n<\/p>\n
                            -.-\n<\/p>\n
K. KANNAN J.\n<\/p>\n
1.       The writ petition challenges the award passed by the Labour<\/p>\n
Court, Rohtak directing reinstatement of the workmen with 50% back<\/p>\n
wages.\n<\/p>\n
2.       The matter of reference before the Labour Court was in<\/p>\n
respect of about 18 workmen, who complained of having been<\/p>\n
prevented from resuming duty and they had been treated as terminated
\n C.W.P No.14488 of 1997                                        -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
from service and the question sent for adjudication was whether the<\/p>\n
services of the workmen named in 18 individual references had been<\/p>\n
terminated or had the workmen abandoned services by absenting<\/p>\n
wilfully.\n<\/p>\n
3.          The point of dispute was that the workmen indulged in<\/p>\n
strike between 16.01.1989 to 18.01.1989 and when they presented<\/p>\n
themselves for resumption of work, the management insisted on<\/p>\n
giving undertaking of good conduct, which the workmen refused and<\/p>\n
even without any written communication specifically terminating the<\/p>\n
services, the workmen were treated as having been terminated by<\/p>\n
reference to the Standing Orders that willful absence for a period of<\/p>\n
10 days beyond the leave period would be constituted as voluntary<\/p>\n
abandonment of duty. The Labour Court found that the management<\/p>\n
had not specifically passed any orders terminating their services but<\/p>\n
held that undertaking required of the workmen was unjustified and<\/p>\n
they had not been permitted to rejoin duty in spite of their willingness,<\/p>\n
which would amount to unlawful termination. The Labour Court took<\/p>\n
note of the circumstances under which the stand-off between the<\/p>\n
management and the workmen took place and awarded, while<\/p>\n
ordering reinstatement, only to 50% back wages.<\/p>\n
4.          The award of the labour Court was challenged among other<\/p>\n
grounds that the strike itself was unjustified and illegal having been<\/p>\n
resorted to by the workmen during the subsistence of a settlement that<\/p>\n
had been brought about between the management and the workmen<\/p>\n
under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The further<\/p>\n
contention was that insistence of the management to secure an
\n C.W.P No.14488 of 1997                                     -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
undertaking from the workman could not be said to be unfair labour<\/p>\n
practice or illegal, in view of the conduct of the workmen who had<\/p>\n
resorted to a strike in spite of the subsistence of a settlement. They<\/p>\n
were, therefore, justified in expecting an undertaking to be given and<\/p>\n
the failure of the workmen to turn up for duty after such undertaking<\/p>\n
ought not to be taken as termination of service by the management.<\/p>\n
The result of the absence of the workmen for a period of more than 10<\/p>\n
days following the strike, which according to the management was<\/p>\n
illegal, entailed automatic abandonment of service in view of the<\/p>\n
Standing Orders that provided for the names being struck off, if a<\/p>\n
workman absented himself without taking prior sanction of leave for 8<\/p>\n
days.   Shri Mutneja, learned counsel for the Management further<\/p>\n
argued that the Management did not actually press for such a hard<\/p>\n
course and in fact offered at the time of conciliation proceedings to<\/p>\n
take back all the workmen to join back but only the workmen did not<\/p>\n
join the factory. The Labour Court’s award was also challenged as<\/p>\n
being inconsistent in holding at one place that the management had<\/p>\n
not passed any order of termination of service but at the same time<\/p>\n
directing reinstatement of workmen when the finding was that they<\/p>\n
had not been terminated.\n<\/p>\n
5.        Learned counsel appearing for the workmen would join<\/p>\n
issues on the illegality of the strike as contended by the management<\/p>\n
by stating that the settlement had been only between the Management<\/p>\n
of Bansal Paper Mill Workers’ Union. The recitals of the settlement<\/p>\n
as brought out on 04.03.1987 through Annexure P-1 state even in the<\/p>\n
preamble that it was brought out only between the management of
\n C.W.P No.14488 of 1997                                       -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Shri Krishna Paper Mills Limited (Coating Division) and the<\/p>\n
workmen of Bansal Paper Mill Workers’ Union. But the name Bansal<\/p>\n
Paper Mills Workers’ Union was even admitted by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
workmen that before the mill was taken over by Shri Krishna Paper<\/p>\n
Mills Ltd., it carried the name of the previous company and continued<\/p>\n
as such even after the take over. The difference in name is therefore<\/p>\n
inconsequential. If there was a settlement that was current, then<\/p>\n
clearly the strike was illegal. The crucial issue is whether they were<\/p>\n
liable for termination from service on account of their participation in<\/p>\n
the illegal strike and by their insistence that they would not give the<\/p>\n
undertaking of good conduct for resumption of work.<\/p>\n
6.        If the strike was illegal, it was perhaps justified that the<\/p>\n
management obtained some measure of assurance of good conduct.<\/p>\n
This point could also be conceded in favour of the management in<\/p>\n
order to test it by an adjudication that is still crucial whether<\/p>\n
termination was justified. Learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
management pointed out in the course of his argument that it was not<\/p>\n
merely a case of the workman participating in an illegal strike but also<\/p>\n
their deliberate abstention inspite of clear offer by the management to<\/p>\n
take them back. He would urge that even when a demand notice had<\/p>\n
been issued by the workman after the strike period in the proceedings<\/p>\n
before the Conciliation Officer, the management had not relied on the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Standing Order that provided for automatic<\/p>\n
termination of service after the expiry of the leave period, they were<\/p>\n
willing to offer employment to all the persons who had participated in<\/p>\n
the strike. Even out of nearly 23 persons, who had not joined and
\n C.W.P No.14488 of 1997                                        -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
issued demand notices, 5 of them had rejoined service but only 18 of<\/p>\n
them were still persisting without accepting the offer of the<\/p>\n
management and went to trial before the Labour Court.<\/p>\n
9.        The Labour Court in its award has reported that it had<\/p>\n
examined all the records and found that the Labour Inspector had<\/p>\n
visited the premises during the conciliation to ascertain at the gate<\/p>\n
whether the workmen were deliberately not allowed to join duty in<\/p>\n
spite of the offer by the management to take them back. He had<\/p>\n
observed that the offer of the workmen to rejoin duty was accepted by<\/p>\n
the management but they also insisted on undertaking which<\/p>\n
undertaking the workmen were not prepared to give and therefore,<\/p>\n
they were not able to rejoin duty. Learned counsel referred to the<\/p>\n
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of India Vs. T.S.<\/p>\n
Kelawala and others (1990) 4 SCC 744 that held the deliberate<\/p>\n
abstention from work through strike or go slow or any other method<\/p>\n
legitimate or illegitimate, resulting in no work for the whole day or<\/p>\n
days or part of the days will entitle the management to deduct pro rata<\/p>\n
or otherwise wages of the participating workmen and it will not<\/p>\n
require   any   special   disciplinary   proceedings    before      making<\/p>\n
deductions. The several other decisions, which the learned counsel<\/p>\n
refers to are still decisions where the continuance of illegal strike had<\/p>\n
been found to justify the denial of wages during the strike period but<\/p>\n
none supports the contention that the management is entitled to insist<\/p>\n
on any specific undertaking from them and if that undertaking is not<\/p>\n
given, the workmen could be prevented from resuming duty.<\/p>\n
Syndicate Bank Vs. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff
\n C.W.P No.14488 of 1997                                        -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
Association and another (2000) 5 SCC 65 is authority for the<\/p>\n
proposition that rules of natural justice would be read into the<\/p>\n
Standing Orders even though they may have contractual basis and<\/p>\n
have statutory force. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a<\/p>\n
case of Bank employee unauthorizedly absenting himself from work<\/p>\n
for the period exceeding the prescribed limit of 90 days. The notice<\/p>\n
had been issued to the workman in that case directing him to rejoin<\/p>\n
but the notice had come with an endorsement that it was refused. In<\/p>\n
such case the Court held that the termination of service without<\/p>\n
holding any departmental enquiry was not violative of principles of<\/p>\n
natural justice and further found that the Bank had rightly treated the<\/p>\n
employee to have voluntarily retired from service. The case at hand<\/p>\n
does not obtain to such a situation of a refusal to join duty despite the<\/p>\n
unequivocal willingness of the management to take him back without<\/p>\n
any conditionality. Maharashtra Labour Union Vs. Pride Hotels Pvt.<\/p>\n
Ltd. and another 2003-IV-LLJ (Suppl) 285 was a decision of the<\/p>\n
Bombay High Court where the Court had held that an employee can<\/p>\n
ask for written undertaking for good behaviour and such a demand<\/p>\n
was not illegal. It was not a case where the workmen had been<\/p>\n
terminated from service on account of unwillingness of the workers to<\/p>\n
rejoin duty.   The Court was considering the effect of such an<\/p>\n
undertaking and held that such a demand for undertaking did not<\/p>\n
amount to unfair labour practice. In T.K. Rangarajan Vs.<\/p>\n
Government of Tamil Nadu and others (2003) 6 SCC 581 the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court held under given circumstances of facts that<\/p>\n
the strike was illegal even while holding that there was no moral or
\n C.W.P No.14488 of 1997                                        -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
equitable justification to go on strike, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had<\/p>\n
recorded the fact of an ordinance issued by the Government offering<\/p>\n
to gracefully reinstate most of the workmen, who had gone on strike.<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Supreme Court had suggested in the case that the<\/p>\n
employees who went on strike might be reinstated in service that<\/p>\n
found acceptance from the state with imposition of conditions of<\/p>\n
tendering of unconditional apology and undertaking to abide by Rule<\/p>\n
22 that the government servant will not engage himself in strike or in<\/p>\n
incitements thereto. The Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear to the<\/p>\n
employees, who were reinstated in service to take care in future in<\/p>\n
maintaining discipline as there was no question of having fundamental<\/p>\n
legal or equitable rights to go on strike. In this case, the offer by the<\/p>\n
management to take them back came with some conditions imposed<\/p>\n
that the workmen should be given undertaking for good conduct while<\/p>\n
the workmen’s refusal to join was only on the ground that the<\/p>\n
management ought not to insist on such an undertaking. The Labour<\/p>\n
Court itself found that the management had not issued any orders of<\/p>\n
termination but still found that the workmen were not able to rejoin<\/p>\n
duty. The differences were not too wide or formidable to bridge the<\/p>\n
gap. With greater sense of purpose and pragmatism, it should have<\/p>\n
been possible to cement their relations. In my view, it will be too<\/p>\n
harsh to treat the situation of the workers refusing to give an<\/p>\n
undertaking in the manner the management wanted as resulting in<\/p>\n
abandonment of service. Abandonment, there never had been, for,<\/p>\n
demand notices, references and the industrial adjudication took place<\/p>\n
in quick succession where the workmen had been clamouring for
\n C.W.P No.14488 of 1997                                       -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
reinstatement. If the workmen could not be reinstated, they have to<\/p>\n
take a major blame on themselves and the price for it ought to be that<\/p>\n
they shall not claim any wages for the period when they did not work<\/p>\n
and not forfeit their jobs completely. The order of the Labour Court<\/p>\n
directing reinstatement was, therefore, justified but the direction for<\/p>\n
payment of back wages may not be proper and to that extent alone the<\/p>\n
award requires to be set aside. The workmen shall be entitled to<\/p>\n
reinstatement with continuity of wages but without back wages. The<\/p>\n
counsel for the workmen states that all the workmen contesting the<\/p>\n
case shall give unconditional apology and resume work. The statement<\/p>\n
of the counsel is recorded and the workmen shall give such an<\/p>\n
unconditional apology as demanded by the management before<\/p>\n
claiming resumption of duty.\n<\/p>\n
10.       Even during the pendency of the writ petition, there had<\/p>\n
been a direction by this Court for payment of the dues to the workmen<\/p>\n
under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. There had been a<\/p>\n
further direction that arrears of pay must be paid within two months<\/p>\n
from the date when the copy of the order was furnished. For non-<\/p>\n
compliance of the direction of this Court, there is also an independent<\/p>\n
petition for contempt in C.O.C.P. No.223 of 2003. From the records,<\/p>\n
it is only seen that it remained unsatisfied. So much for the conduct of<\/p>\n
the management. In view of the decision that I have taken affirming<\/p>\n
the order of the Labour Court, I do not want to persist it further by<\/p>\n
issuance any direction for contempt. The workmen are entitled to<\/p>\n
obtain what was assured as last drawn pay upto the actual date of<\/p>\n
reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n
 C.W.P No.14488 of 1997                                     -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
11.      Contempt petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
12.      The writ petition is dismissed with the modification of the<\/p>\n
award of the Labour Court to the extent indicated above. No costs.<\/p>\n
                                                 (K. KANNAN)
\n                                                   JUDGE
\nAugust 03 , 2009
\nPankaj*\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Shree Krishna Paper Mill And … vs Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2009 C.W.P No.14488 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.14488 of 1997 Date of Decision: 03.08.2009 Shree Krishna Paper Mill and Industries Limited, Bahadurgarh, T-4, Industrial Area, Bahadurgarh (Haryana) […]<\/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-199008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShree Krishna Paper Mill And ... vs Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2009 - 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\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shree Krishna Paper Mill And ... vs Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-30T04:24:13+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\\\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shree Krishna Paper Mill And … vs Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-30T04:24:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2200,\"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\\\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Shree Krishna Paper Mill And ... vs Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-30T04:24:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shree Krishna Paper Mill And … vs Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Shree Krishna Paper Mill And ... vs Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2009 - 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\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shree Krishna Paper Mill And ... vs Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-30T04:24:13+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\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shree Krishna Paper Mill And … vs Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-30T04:24:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009"},"wordCount":2200,"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\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009","name":"Shree Krishna Paper Mill And ... vs Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-30T04:24:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-krishna-paper-mill-and-vs-presiding-officer-on-3-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shree Krishna Paper Mill And … vs Presiding Officer on 3 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/199008","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=199008"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199008\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}