{"id":202841,"date":"2006-06-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006"},"modified":"2017-09-02T01:04:18","modified_gmt":"2017-09-01T19:34:18","slug":"s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006","title":{"rendered":"S.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 27\/06\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU\n\n\nW.P.No.3976 of 2004\n\n\n\nS.Selvaraj\t\t\t... \tPetitioner \t\t\t\n\n\nVs.\t\n\n\n1.The Presiding Officer,\n  Labour Court, Trichirapalli.\n\n2.The Management,\n  Tamilnadu State Transport\n  Corporation (Kumbakonam\n  Division II) Ltd.,\n  now renamed as\n  Tamilnadu State Transport\n  Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,\n  Railway Station Road,\n  Kumbakonam.\t\t\t... \tRespondents\n\n\nPRAYER\n\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for issuance of a Writ of  Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the\nrecords of the 1st respondent herein in I.D.No.110\/1997 dated 03.02.2004, quash\nthe same and direct the second respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner\nwith continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits.\n\n\n!For Petitioner   \t..\tMr.M.Arun Murugan\n\n\n^For Respondent No.2\t..\tMr.K.Jayaraman\n\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the award passed by the<br \/>\nPresiding Officer, Labour Court, Trichirapalli, the first respondent herein, in<br \/>\nI.D.No.110\/1997 dated 03.02.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The petitioner&#8217;s claim for reinstatement in the second respondent a<br \/>\nstate owned Transport Corporation, was rejected by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.  The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a temporary<br \/>\nconductor from the year 1984, with the second respondent\/Corporation and he is<br \/>\nworking continuously without break of  service  and attending the duty<br \/>\nregularly.  It is specifically stated that the wages are calculated on daily<br \/>\nrate but paid on monthly basis, as is being paid to all the temporary workers.<br \/>\nThe temporary workers are also performing the same work like permanent workers<br \/>\nand are entitled for all statutory benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. It is stated that though he is working for more than 10 years and<br \/>\nworking more than 240 days in every calendar year, the second respondent has not<br \/>\nmade him permanent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 26.04.1995, his service was<br \/>\nterminated orally by the second respondent without assigning any reason and<br \/>\nwithout prior notice. Hence, the termination is illegal and is without following<br \/>\nthe mandatory conditions under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act,<br \/>\n1947 (hereinafter referred as &#8216;the Act&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Therefore, he raised a dispute in the Labour Court, and the same was<br \/>\nrejected.  Hence, he is before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The second respondent has filed his detailed counter.   Accordingly the<br \/>\nservice of the petitioner was utilized on a casual basis, as and when his<br \/>\nservice was required and the employment subsisted on day to day basis and not on<br \/>\nmonthly basis and permanency, and as and when the petitioner  attended the duty,<br \/>\nhe was being paid  wages for that day and for other days when his service was<br \/>\nnot required he has not been paid any wages.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Thus, the case of the 2nd respondent is that there is no employer &#8211;<br \/>\nworkman relationship existed between the respondent and the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. It is stated that the petitioner was never employed in any substantial<br \/>\npost.  It is also stated that the casual employees are engaged by the Branch<br \/>\nManager, depending upon the requirements.  Hence, those casual employees<br \/>\nincluding the petitioner, cannot claim any lien or right for any employment in<br \/>\nthe Corporation.  It is stated that the name of the petitioner was sponsored for<br \/>\nsubstantial post, but  he was not selected and this fact was admitted by the<br \/>\npetitioner also.  Hence, he continues to be a casual employee.  It is stated<br \/>\nthat there are number of such persons, attached with the respondent.  It is also<br \/>\nstated that the respondent never terminated the service of the petitioner as<br \/>\nthere is no question of any employment as the petitioner is not their employee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 10. The stand taken by the second respondent is that they utilized  the<br \/>\nservice of the petitioner as and when they required.  Therefore, it cannot be<br \/>\nconsidered as a retrenchment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. It is also stated that the petitioner never worked  continuously<br \/>\nbeyond 240 days in a twelve calendar months and even according to his own<br \/>\nevidence, he worked only for 135 days in a year and that too not continuously.<br \/>\nIt is stated that the service of  petitioner is taken from 1994 on daily wages<br \/>\nbasis.  Hence, he is not entitled for any relief and  he fails to satisfy the<br \/>\nrequirements of the provisions of the Act.  The first respondent thus pronounced<br \/>\nan award, rejecting his claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the second<br \/>\nrespondent and  learned Additional Government pleader appearing for the first<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Perused the Award of the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. The point for determination is whether the     petitioner is being<br \/>\nterminated from service,  and if so, he is entitled for any relief?\n<\/p>\n<p>    POINT:   The petitioner did not produce any document to show that he was<br \/>\nappointed by the second respondent in any substantial post and he is a permanent<br \/>\nemployee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 15. Section 2(oo) of the Act deals with &#8216;retrenchment&#8217; and it means that<br \/>\nthe termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason<br \/>\nwhatsoever than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 16. Section 2(s) deals with the definition of &#8216;workman&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 17. The first respondent discussed this aspect at paragraph 11 of his<br \/>\naward and observed that the petitioner has been provided work on daily wages<br \/>\nbasis by the concerned Branch Manager.  It is also observed in paragraph 12 that<br \/>\nthe petitioner was not able to establish that he worked for more than 240 days,<br \/>\nin a calendar year.  It is also observed that as per Ex.W1, he has not<br \/>\nestablished that he has worked for more than 240 days a year.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nfirst respondent has come to a definite conclusion that the petitioner has not<br \/>\nproduced any document to show that he has been appointed on a regular basis with<br \/>\nthe concerned authorities in order to claim that he is employee of the second<br \/>\nrespondent and so also, he has failed to produce any document to show that he<br \/>\nworked for more than 240 days a year and in order to claim any relief, under<br \/>\nSection 25(F) of the Act.  The first respondent has relied on the judgment of<br \/>\nthis Court and held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 25(B)(F)&amp;(H) ought to be considered.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. However, it is conceded that there is  no document to prove that the<br \/>\npetitioner was appointed by the second respondent and it is also stated that<br \/>\nthere is no document to prove that the petitioner has worked continuously for<br \/>\nmore than 240 days in any calendar year.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. The Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with<br \/>\n&#8216;definition of continuous service&#8217;.  It is as follows;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;25-B. Definition of continuous service &#8211; for the purpose of this<br \/>\nchapter,-  &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(2) Where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of<br \/>\nclause(1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in<br \/>\ncontinuous service under an employer-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve<br \/>\ncalendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be<br \/>\nmade, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) One hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below<br \/>\nground in a mine; and\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> \t 21. The Supreme Court of India in more than 100 cases has clearly held<br \/>\nthat before a workman can be considered to have completed one year of continuous<br \/>\nservice in an industry, it must be shown that he was employed for a period not<br \/>\nless than twelve calendar months, and the most important<\/p>\n<p>fact is that during those twelve calendar months,  he should have worked for not<br \/>\nless than 240 days.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to prove that he was<br \/>\nemployed with the second respondent for a period  not less than twelve calendar<br \/>\nmonths and so also, he failed to prove that he has worked for not less than 240<br \/>\ndays in any calendar month.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t23. In  Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P.  Vs.  Anil Kumar Mishra &amp; others<br \/>\netc. (1)<\/p>\n<p>\t The  Supreme Court of India has categorically held that if a person<br \/>\nworking in the post which has not been sanctioned and he has not been appointed<br \/>\nin any substantial post and when his services are utilized only on ad hoc<br \/>\nbasis, such a person has neither any right to claim regularization nor any<br \/>\nstatus to claim as a workman under<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br \/>\n (1) 1994(2) LLJ 977<br \/>\nthe Act, to claim any relief in spite of the fact that such a workman working in<br \/>\nad hoc basis who has completed the service of 240 days.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 24.  The question of termination or retrenchment is with regard to the<br \/>\nregular employee. When it is not a case of retrenchment of regular employee the<br \/>\npetitioner is not entitled for any relief under Section 25(H) as he is not a<br \/>\nregular employee or has worked continuously for a period of 240 days in twelve<br \/>\ncalendar month. There are no merits in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 25. Surendranagar District Panchayat  Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh. (1)<br \/>\n\t   The Supreme Court of India has held that the facts must be proved by<br \/>\nthe workman to claim the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act. To claim the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 25(f) of the Act, it should be proved by the workman that<br \/>\nthere exists a relationship of employer &#8211; employee, and that<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>\n(1)  2005(8) SCC 750<\/p>\n<p>he is a workman within the meaning of  Section 2(s)of the Act and he has worked<br \/>\nfor not less than one year service continuously as provided under Section 25(B)<br \/>\nof the Act. If any one of this is missing, then the workman is not entitled for<br \/>\nthe relief under Section 25(F).  Thus the Supreme Court of India has<br \/>\ncategorically held that the burden of proof lies only on the workman and it is<br \/>\nfor the workman to adduce evidence to prove all the above facts.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 26. Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others  Vs.  State of Bihar and others<br \/>\n(S.C.).(1)<br \/>\n     The Supreme Court of India has held that the disengagement from service of<br \/>\nappellants, who were temporary employees working on daily wages, did not amount<br \/>\nto &#8220;retrenchment&#8221; and the termination of their service was not in violation of<br \/>\nSection 25(F) of the Act.  Since they were only daily wage employees, they had<br \/>\nno right to their posts and their disengagement was not arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br \/>\n(1) 90 FJR 465<\/p>\n<p>\t 27.  The counsel for the petitioner contended that the second respondent<br \/>\nmay consider for re-employment of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t28.  The second respondent can consider the same.  The corporation is at<br \/>\nliberty to do so and this court cannot give any direction in this regard.<br \/>\n\tWith the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.   No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>gcg<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\n  Labour Court, Trichirapalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Management,<br \/>\n  Tamilnadu State Transport<br \/>\n  Corporation (Kumbakonam<br \/>\n  Division II) Ltd.,<br \/>\n  now renamed as<br \/>\n  Tamilnadu State Transport<br \/>\n  Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,<br \/>\n  Railway Station Road,<br \/>\n  Kumbakonam.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27\/06\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU W.P.No.3976 of 2004 S.Selvaraj &#8230; Petitioner Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Trichirapalli. 2.The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division II) Ltd., now renamed as [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-202841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2006 - 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\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-01T19:34:18+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-01T19:34:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1682,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006\",\"name\":\"S.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-01T19:34:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2006 - 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\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-01T19:34:18+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2006","datePublished":"2006-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-01T19:34:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006"},"wordCount":1682,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006","name":"S.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-01T19:34:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-selvaraj-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-27-june-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 27 June, 2006"}]},{"@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\/202841","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=202841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202841\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}