{"id":202746,"date":"2009-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009"},"modified":"2018-09-25T21:01:25","modified_gmt":"2018-09-25T15:31:25","slug":"jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Jugal Kishore vs Presiding Officer on 16 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Jugal Kishore vs Presiding Officer on 16 November, 2009<\/div>\n
CWP No. 10196 of 2009                                1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                      CWP No. 10196 of 2009\n                                 Date of decision November 3, 2009\n\n\nJugal Kishore\n                                                           .......    Petitioner\n                                 Versus\n\nPresiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and others.\n\n                                                     ........ Respondents\n\nCORAM:             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN\n\nPresent:-          Mr. R. K. Sharma, Advocate\n                   for the petitioner.\n\n                   Mr. APS Maan, DAG., Punjab\n                   for the respondents.\n\n                          ****\n<\/pre>\n
                   1.     Whether reporters of local newspapers may be
\n                          allowed to see the judgment ? No\n<\/p>\n
                   2.     To be referred to the reporters or not? No\n<\/p>\n
                   3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in
\n                          the digest? No<\/p>\n
                                       ****<\/p>\n
K. Kannan, J (oral).\n<\/p>\n
                   1.     The writ petition challenges the order of rejection<\/p>\n
of reference sought at the instance of the workman. The contention of the<\/p>\n
workman was that he had been employed as a Baledar since 1.11.1988 to<\/p>\n
31.3.1990 when his services were illegally terminated.               The workman<\/p>\n
examined himself to speak about the period of engagement, while the<\/p>\n
Management had two contentions to take viz. that he had not worked for a<\/p>\n
continuous period of 240 days and that a reference was sought nearly 10<\/p>\n
years and 9 months after the date of termination and hence the workman<\/p>\n
who was guilty of laches is not entitled to any relief.<\/p>\n
                   2.     The Labour Court held that the burden of proof<\/p>\n
was on the workman to establish the period of 240 days of continuous
\n CWP No. 10196 of 2009                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
service and found inconsistency in his version that he contended that the<\/p>\n
post of Baledar itself was permanent but he had been employed on daily<\/p>\n
rated basis. The Labour Court found that the workman had not examined<\/p>\n
any co-worker to discharge the burden which was heavy on the workman<\/p>\n
relating to his period of work. The finding of the Labour Court in my view,<\/p>\n
appears to be no correct for mere oral evidence of the workman could not<\/p>\n
have also been found to be credible enough to uphold the claim. The best<\/p>\n
evidence is always available with the Management and in a case where the<\/p>\n
workman gives evidence relating to his period of engagement and he also<\/p>\n
gives cogent evidence of the available materials with the Management and<\/p>\n
when the Management does not produce such records the Court would be<\/p>\n
even justified in drawing an adverse inference against the Management.<\/p>\n
                  3.    As regards the proposition of law that the burden<\/p>\n
of proof is always on the workman it must be stated that the burden of<\/p>\n
proof never shifts. The explanation of the principle shall be in the context<\/p>\n
of how the initial burden is cast which can never shift. The onus of proof,<\/p>\n
however, is an expression which Courts employ to see how the initial<\/p>\n
burden is sought to be discharged when the Court looks for nature of<\/p>\n
evidence which is adduced by the party against whom the evidence is<\/p>\n
tendered. In such an event, it is stated that the onus shifts to the other<\/p>\n
side. In this case, when the workman had given evidence of number of<\/p>\n
days his engagement, he had also referred to the documents which are<\/p>\n
available with the Management, it must be taken that the onus shifted to<\/p>\n
the Management to adduce evidence on the number of days that he<\/p>\n
worked.    Although, the documents have been available with the<\/p>\n
Management from November, 1988 up to March, 1990 it had not produced<\/p>\n
evidence for the said period. In fact it was in evidence of the Management<\/p>\n
witness that the documents had been available when the written statement<\/p>\n
was prepared. The justification for non-production was only that the
\n CWP No. 10196 of 2009                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
document was too old. He had also admitted that there was no loss or<\/p>\n
misplacement of the records for the relevant period. It was definitely a<\/p>\n
case where the Management was trying to conceal the best evidence<\/p>\n
which was available.\n<\/p>\n
                  4.    The learned counsel for the respondent refers to a<\/p>\n
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Range Forest Officer Vs.<\/p>\n
S.T. Hadimani reported in 2002 (3) SCTC 25             where the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court was referring to a case of a party merely filing an affidavit<\/p>\n
contending for proof of his calculation and the Court held that it was not<\/p>\n
sufficient for determination of number of days of service. Yet another case<\/p>\n
of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd Vs.<\/p>\n
Mahak Singh and others 2007 (2) RSJ 558 dealt with a situation of the<\/p>\n
non production of registers and muster rolls when the Court held that the<\/p>\n
best evidence was withheld and when the Court held that it was entitled to<\/p>\n
draw an adverse inference. In my view, the fact of the case required an<\/p>\n
application of law as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the latter<\/p>\n
case referred to above. The rejection of the claim of the workman that the<\/p>\n
period of 240 days was not proved was therefore, unjustified.<\/p>\n
                  5.    For non-compliance of provisions of Section 25-F,<\/p>\n
the adequate relief would always be required to be examined on the basis<\/p>\n
of particular evidence of each case. In this case, although, the workman<\/p>\n
had pleaded that he had been illegally terminated from service on<\/p>\n
31.3.1990, he had issued a demand notice and sought reference that was<\/p>\n
about 11 years and 9 months from the date when the termination had taken<\/p>\n
place. The evidence given by the workman was that he had approached<\/p>\n
the respondent many times and requested them to reinstate him in the old<\/p>\n
job with full back wages but that had been put off on one pretext or the<\/p>\n
other. This statement appears to be vague. It is most artificial to say that<\/p>\n
he was simply visiting the factory for 12 years without even making
\n CWP No. 10196 of 2009                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
approach to the Court at the appropriate time. If that was the attitude, the<\/p>\n
workman could not be granted the benefit of reinstatement. The<\/p>\n
appropriate relief has to be considered from the point of view of number of<\/p>\n
years of service that he has put in and the years that he was fighting for<\/p>\n
justice. The workman had but worked for 17 months and terminated in the<\/p>\n
year 1990.      There was unexplained delay for making the claim.<\/p>\n
Reinstatement of such a workman after nearly two decades when his<\/p>\n
services were terminated does not in my view, appear to be appropriate.<\/p>\n
For the period of service that he had worked the adequate relief for non-<\/p>\n
compliance of Section 25-F in my view would be payment of Rs.35,000\/-,<\/p>\n
which amount shall be paid by the Management within a period of four<\/p>\n
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.<\/p>\n
                   6.    The award of the Labour Court is set aside and<\/p>\n
modified to admit the claim of the workman as set out above. The writ<\/p>\n
petition is allowed on the above terms. There shall, however, be no<\/p>\n
direction as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                        (K. KANNAN)
\n                                                          JUDGE
\nNovember 3, 2009
\narchana\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Jugal Kishore vs Presiding Officer on 16 November, 2009 CWP No. 10196 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10196 of 2009 Date of decision November 3, 2009 Jugal Kishore ……. Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and others. …….. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. […]<\/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-202746","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJugal Kishore vs Presiding Officer on 16 November, 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\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jugal Kishore vs Presiding Officer on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-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=\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-25T15:31:25+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jugal Kishore vs Presiding Officer on 16 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-25T15:31:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1080,\"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\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Jugal Kishore vs Presiding Officer on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-25T15:31:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jugal Kishore vs Presiding Officer on 16 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Jugal Kishore vs Presiding Officer on 16 November, 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\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jugal Kishore vs Presiding Officer on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-25T15:31:25+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jugal Kishore vs Presiding Officer on 16 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-25T15:31:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009"},"wordCount":1080,"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\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009","name":"Jugal Kishore vs Presiding Officer on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-25T15:31:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jugal-kishore-vs-presiding-officer-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jugal Kishore vs Presiding Officer on 16 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/202746","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=202746"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202746\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202746"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202746"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202746"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}