{"id":19977,"date":"2010-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-04-29T18:32:37","modified_gmt":"2017-04-29T13:02:37","slug":"rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rakesh vs Industrial on 5 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Rakesh vs Industrial on 5 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/1075\/2009\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1075 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nRAKESH\nRAMNARESH TIWARI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nINDUSTRIAL\nSECURITY SERVICES - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nTR MISHRA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1,MR UT MISHRA for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nNOTICE\nSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, \nRULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 05\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\tHeard
\nlearned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tRule
\nis served to respondent but no appearance is filed by him and no
\nadvocate is engaged. Therefore, the matter is taken up for final
\nhearing in absence of respondent.\n<\/p>\n
2.1\tIn
\nthis connection, the workman has raised industrial disputed against
\nIndustrial Security Services and Branch Manager, GSIC, Sukhramnagar,
\nchallenging termination order under Reference No.652 of 1992 wherein
\nIndustrial Security Services remained absent. Therefore, Labour
\nCourt, Ahmedabad has passed an award being ex-parte award Exh.56
\ndated 21.10.2002 in respect of Industrial Security Services. The
\nReference has been allowed in favour of petitioner. The direction
\nissued by Labour Court against Industrial Security Services to
\nimplement the award. On the basis of aforesaid award, Recovery
\nApplication No.293 to 296 of 2003 have been filed by four workmen
\nincluding present petitioner before Labour Court, which came to be
\ndecided on 2.11.2004. Even in that Recovery Application, respondent –
\nIndustrial Security Services remained absent. Therefore, direction
\nissued by Labour Court, Ahmedabad against Industrial Security
\nServices to pay total amount of Rs.8,36,738.56 ps. by order dated
\n2.11.2004. The Industrial Security Services has filed MCA No.6 of
\n2005 against ex-parte award passed in Reference No.652 of 1992 which
\nalso came to be dismissed in default because Industrial Security
\nServices remained absent and order was passed by Labour Court,
\nAhmedabad on 10.11.2006. Therefore, on 12.3.2007, Recovery
\nApplication No.210 of 2007 filed by petitioner with a prayer to grant
\nrecovery certificate in favour of Mamlatdar, Alien Recovery Branch,
\nSurat under Section 33(c)(1) of the I.D.Act,1947. In support of
\nrecovery application, one affidavit is also filed by one of the
\npetitioners viz., Rakeshkumar Ramnaresh Tiwari   present
\npetitioner. This affidavit suggests that ex-parte award in MCA which
\nwas dismissed in default against which no proceedings is initiated by
\nIndustrial Security Services and there is no stay operating against
\nit. Not only that but, the Recovery Application No.293 to 296 of 2003
\ndated 2.11.2004 which order has been received by  Industrial Security
\nServices  and amount is not paid and Industrial Security Services has
\nnot challenged the aforesaid order to higher forum and no stay is in
\noperation. The Labour Court has, while deciding Recovery Application
\nNo.210 of 2007 under Section 33(c)(1) of the I.D.Act,1947, rejected
\nthe said application on mis-conception of law by order dated
\n21.11.2008 because recovery application is not filed within a period
\nof one year from the date of on which the amount is found to be due
\nin favour of petitioner. The Labour Court has also come to conclusion
\nthat no sufficient cause has been  shown by petitioners as to why
\ndelay has been occurred in filing application. This order dated
\n21.11.2008 is challenged in present petition by petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\npetitioner has challenged the order passed by Labour Court, Ahmedabad
\ndated 21.11.2008 whereby application preferred by petitioner being
\nRecovery Application No.210\/2007 has been dismissed only on the
\nground of delay because the recovery application under Section
\n33(c)(1) of the I.D.Act,1947 is not filed within a period of one year
\nfrom date of passing order by Labour Court in recovery application
\ndated 2.11.2004.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\nLabour Court has discussed this issue in Para.8 of order in question.
\nThis recovery application has been made by petitioner  under Section
\n33(c)(1) of the I.D.Act,1947 with a prayer to issue recovery
\ncertificate against respondent. Initially, recovery application was
\nfiled by petitioner  under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D.Act,1947 being
\nRecovery Application No.293 to 296 of 2003 wherein the Labour Court
\nhas passed an order on 2.11.2004.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tReference
\nNo.652 of 1992 Exh.56 (Annexure-A, Page-8) wherein the Labour Court
\nhas passed an ex-parte award on 21.10.2002 directing to first party
\nNo.2   Industrial Security Services to reinstate the workmen
\nShri Kartansinh S. Rajpur, Shri Rakesh R. Tiwari, Shri Umanani R.
\nMishra, Shri Ratankumar S. Pandey in service with full back wages of
\ninterim period and in respect to Rambosan J. Tiwari, who died during
\npendency of reference, his son Shatradhna Rambosan Tiwari was
\ndirected to be paid back wages of interim period from 30.11.1991 to
\n19.4.1999 with all consequential benefits by first party No.2.
\nTherefore,  prayer made by petitioner of reinstatement of Shri
\nRambosan J. Tiwari not granted. In respect to Shri Dinesh P. Makwana
\nand Rameshkumar L. Gorkha, who were not remained present before
\nlabour Court, therefore, their case has been dismissed in default. So
\nlabour Court, Ahmedabad has passed an ex-parte award as referred
\nabove in favour of five workmen with reinstatement and back wages by
\norder dated 21.10.2002. Thereafter, workmen concerned were not
\nreinstated in service and back wages were not paid. Therefore,
\nRecovery Application No.293 to 296 of 2003 filed by workmen  under
\nSection 33(c)(2) of the I.D.Act,1947. The labour Court has passed an
\nex-parte order in said recovery application on 2.11.2004 in absence
\nof respondent. The labour Court has granted Rs.2,09,094. 64 ps. in
\nfavour of each workman and in all, it comes to Rs.8,36,738.56 ps. to
\nbe recovered from respondent. This order was passed in recovery
\napplication  under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D.Act,1947 in absence of
\nrespondent on 2.11.2004. Thereafter, the Industrial Security Services
\nhas filed MCA No.6 of 2005 in Reference No.652 of 1992 under Rule 26A
\nof the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules where the applicant
\nIndustrial Security Services remained absent. Therefore, that
\napplication has been dismissed in default by labour Court on
\n10.11.2006. Thereafter, recovery application No.210 of 2007 filed by
\nworkmen with a prayer to issue recovery certificate in favour of
\nMamlatdar, Alien  Recovery Branch, Surat of Rs.8,36,738.56 as per
\napplication dated 12.3.207 (Annexure-D, Page-23). An application
\nunder Rule 26A of the Rules was filed by the Industrial Security
\nServices has been dismissed on 10.11.2006. Thereafter, immediately
\nwithin a period of four months, recovery application has been filed
\nby petitioner before labour Court  under
\nSection 33(c)(1) of the I.D.Act,1947. An affidavit is also filed in
\nsupport of recovery application 12.3.2007 by Shri R.R.Tiwari.
\nThereafter, labour Court has examined recovery application No.210 of
\n2007 which was filed  under Section 33(c)(1) of the I.D.Act,1947
\nwhere provision is that such application is required to be filed
\nwithin a period of one year from date of amount is due in favour of
\nconcerned workman. The relevant provisions Section 33(c)(1) of the
\nI.D.Act,1947 is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 33C.\n<\/p>\n
 Recovery of money due from an employer.  (1) Where any
\nmoney is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an
\naward or under the provisions of 4*[Chapter VA or Chapter VB], the
\nworkman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in
\nthis behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his
\nassignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of
\nrecovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the
\nrecovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government
\nis satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate
\nfor that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the
\nsame in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided
\nthat every such application shall be made within one year from the
\ndate on which the money became due to the workman from the employer.\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided
\nfurther that any such application may be entertained after the expiry
\nof the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is
\nsatisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the
\napplication within the said period.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tConsidering
\ndiscussion made by labour Court, Ahmedabad in Recovery Application
\nNo.210 of 2007 which was rejected only on the ground that said
\napplication must have to be filed within a period of one year from
\ndate on which amount is due in favour of concerned workmen. The
\nLabour Court has come to conclusion that if beyond one year period,
\nsuch application is filed by workman  then labour Court has power to
\ncondone delay if sufficient cause is established by workman. The
\nlabour Court has examined this matter and discussed the issue in
\nPara.8. The Labour Court has ignored that ex-parte award which was
\npassed against present respondent in Reference No.652 of 1992,
\nExh.25, dated 21.10.2002. Thereafter, MCA No.6 of 2005 is filed by
\nrespondent which was dismissed in default on 10.11.2006. Therefore,
\nso long ex-parte award which was passed by labour Court in respect to
\nReference No.652 of 1992 filed by employer is not become final and
\nmeanwhile application made by employer under Rule 26A of the Rules to
\nset aside ex-parte award, naturally workman is not able to file
\nrecovery application  under Section 33(c)(1) of the I.D.Act,1947 with
\na prayer to labour Court to issue recovery certificate. Therefore,
\nthis aspect has been lost sight by labour court while examining the
\nmatter for issuing recovery certificate in favour of petitioner. The
\nrecovery application  under Section 33(c)(1) of the I.D.Act,1947 was
\nfiled by workman on 12.3.2007 and application under Rule 26A of the
\nRules was filed by respondent has been dismissed in default on
\n10.11.2006. Therefore, labour Court has committed gross error in
\nconsidering order passed by labour Court on 21.10.2002 which was
\nex-parte award passed by labour Court against respondent. The
\nrespondent has filed application under Rule 26A of the Rules which
\nwas dismissed in default on 10.11.2006. That order has not been at
\nall considered by labour Court. Therefore, from date of order dated
\n10.11.2006 which was passed by labour Court in MCA No.6 of 2005, the
\npresent application filed by workman on 12.3.2007 is within a period
\nof one year. Therefore, labour court has ignored the order passed by
\nlabour Court in MCA No.6 of 2005 dated 10.11.2006. Therefore, finding
\ngiven by labour Court in Para.8 considering relevant provisions of
\nSection 33(c)(1) of the I.D.Act,1947 and come to conclusion that
\nsufficient cause is not established by workman. Therefore, delay is
\nnot condoned in filing recovery application  under Section 33(c)(1)
\nof the I.D.Act,1947, because application preferred by workman  under
\nSection 33(c)(1) of the I.D.Act,1947 is found to be beyond the period
\nof one year. That finding of fact itself is incorrect and contrary to
\nrecord because MCA No.6 of 2005 has been dismissed in default on
\n10.11.2006. Thereafter, immediately recovery application has been
\nfiled by workman  under Section 33(c)(1) of the I.D.Act,1947 with a
\nprayer to issue recovery certificate in favour of Mamlatdar, Alien
\nRecovery, Surat.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tTherefore,
\naccording to my opinion, labour Court, Ahmedabad has committed gross
\nerror in deciding recovery application by order dated 21.11.2008 and
\nalso committed gross error in rejecting said application. Therefore,
\norder passed by labour court, Ahmedabad on 21.11.2008 in Recovery
\nApplication No.210 of 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside with a
\ndirection to Labour Court, Ahmedabad to issue recovery certificate in
\nfavour of Mamlatdar, Alien Recovery, Surat as per order passed by
\nLabour Court on 2.11.2004 in Recovery Application Nos.293 to 296 of
\n2003, Exh.17. It is further directed to Labour Court, Ahmedabad to
\nissue recovery certificate in favour of workman addressing to
\nMamlatdar, Alien Recovery, Surat to recover total amount of
\nRs.8,36,738.56 ps. from the Industrial Security Services. This order
\nis required to be implemented by labour Court, Ahmedabad within a
\nperiod of one month from date of receiving copy of present order.
\nAccordingly, Rule is made absolute.\n<\/p>\n
(H.K.RATHOD,J.)<\/p>\n
(vipul)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Rakesh vs Industrial on 5 April, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/1075\/2009 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1075 of 2009 ========================================================= RAKESH RAMNARESH TIWARI – Petitioner(s) Versus INDUSTRIAL SECURITY SERVICES – Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR TR […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRakesh vs Industrial on 5 April, 2010 - 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\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rakesh vs Industrial on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-29T13:02:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rakesh vs Industrial on 5 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-29T13:02:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1851,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Rakesh vs Industrial on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-29T13:02:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rakesh vs Industrial on 5 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Rakesh vs Industrial on 5 April, 2010 - 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\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rakesh vs Industrial on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-29T13:02:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rakesh vs Industrial on 5 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-29T13:02:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010"},"wordCount":1851,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010","name":"Rakesh vs Industrial on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-29T13:02:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-vs-industrial-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rakesh vs Industrial on 5 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/19977","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=19977"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19977\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}