{"id":205147,"date":"2011-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-10-16T02:13:17","modified_gmt":"2017-10-15T20:43:17","slug":"general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"General Manager vs Shivaji Basvantrao Patil on 9 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
General Manager vs Shivaji Basvantrao Patil on 9 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                        1                wp2260.92\n\n                                           \n          IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n                WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 1992\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     General Manager,\n     Government Milk Scheme,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Udgir. \n                                    ...APPELLANT\n\n              VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     1.\n                 \n          Shivaji Basvantrao Patil,\n          Age: Major, Occ: Service,\n\n     2.   D.P. Yengale,\n                \n          Age: 36 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     3.   Omprakashj Karbasappa Vishwanathe,\n          Age: 34 years, Occ: Service,\n      \n\n\n     4.   V.B. Rathod,\n   \n\n\n\n          Age: 32 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     5.   A.N. Kendre,\n          Age: 36 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n\n     6.   V.V. Nagrale,\n          Age: 35 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     7.   V.G. Konable,\n\n\n\n\n\n          Age: 35 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     8.   U.G. Panchal,\n          Age: 34 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     9.   Shaikh Igbal,\n          Age: 36 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::\n                          2              wp2260.92\n\n\n     10. S.M. Kanthe,\n         Age: 35 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     11. L.E. Biradar,\n         Age: 36 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     12. S.V. Chavan,\n         Age: 36 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     13. A.R. Awasthi,\n         Age: 32 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     14. S.N. Ghanshi,\n\n\n\n\n                            \n         Age: 34 years, Occ: Service,\n                 \n     15. Shaikh M.S.\n         Age: 35 years, Occ: Service,\n                \n     16. Khadri S.M.\n         Age: 32 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     17. Patil D.N.\n      \n\n         Age: 34 years, Occ: Service,\n   \n\n\n\n     18. Thakur R.B.\n         Age: 38 years, Occ: Service,\n\n          All R\/o. Udgir, c\/o. Govt. Milk\n\n\n\n\n\n          Scheme, Udgir, Dist.Latur.      ...RESPONDENTS\n                          \n\n                  WITH\n\n         WRIT PETITION NO. 2261 OF 1992\n\n\n\n\n\n     General Manager,\n     Government Milk Scheme,\n     Udgir.                                ...APPELLANT\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::\n                           3              wp2260.92\n\n              VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Damodhar Dattatraya Patwari,\n     Age: 34 years, Occ: Service,\n     C\/o. C.N. Shinde,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     General Secretary,\n     Trade Union Office, Udgir,\n     Dist.Latur.                          ...RESPONDENT\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n              WITH\n\n          WRIT PETITION NO. 2262 OF 1992         \n\n\n\n\n                             \n                        \n                 \n     General Manager,\n     Government Milk Scheme,\n     Udgir.                                ...APPELLANT\n                \n              VERSUS\n\n\n     1.   Vithal Shankarrao Shendre,\n      \n\n          Occ: Service,\n   \n\n\n\n     2.   Dawar Shakh Lonikar,\n          Occ: Service,\n\n     3.   P.K. Gaikwad,\n\n\n\n\n\n          Occ: Service,\n\n     4.   I.M. Shaikh,\n          Occ : Service, \n\n\n\n\n\n          All r\/o. Udgir,\n          C\/o. Govt. Milk Scheme,\n          Udgir Dist.Latur.               ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n              WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::\n                         4                wp2260.92\n\n\n          WRIT PETITION NO. 2265 OF 1992\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     General Manager,\n     Government Milk Scheme,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Udgir.                                ...APPELLANT\n\n              VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     1.   V.V. Makne,\n          Age: 34 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n     2.   M.N. Nilangekar,\n          Age: 34 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     3.\n                 \n          B.G. Shirure,,\n          Age: 38 years, Occ: Service,\n                \n     4.   B.N. Ratnaparkhi,\n          Age: 38 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     5.   K.M. Rodge,\n      \n\n          Age: 33 years, Occ: Service,\n   \n\n\n\n     6.   Habibkhan Pathan,\n          Age: 29 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     7.   K.G. Jadhav,\n\n\n\n\n\n          Age: 31 years, Occ: Service,\n\n          All R\/o. Udgir, c\/o. Govt. Milk\n          Scheme, Udgir, Dist.Latur.      ...RESPONDENTS \n\n\n\n\n\n                       WITH\n\n          WRIT PETITION NO. 2266 OF 1992\n\n     General Manager,\n     Government Milk Scheme,\n     Udgir.                                ...APPELLANT\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::\n                         5                wp2260.92\n\n\n              VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     1.   Chandrashekhar Madhavrao Deshmukh,\n          Age: 36 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     2.   Balaji Parbatrao Biradar,\n          Age: 36 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     3.   Balbhim Venkatrao Mane,\n          Age: 38 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     4.   Harikbhajan Ganpatrao Mane,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n          Age: 38 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     5.   Pandurang Govindrao Sonkamble,\n                 \n          Age: 38 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     6.   Vishwambhar Tukaram Waghmare,\n                \n          Age: 39 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     7.   Abarao Laxmanrao Mane,\n          Age: 38 years, Occ: Service,\n      \n\n\n     8.   Rajshekhar Sanmukhappa Wanka,\n   \n\n\n\n          Age: 34 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     9.   Govind Dharmaji Kamble,\n          Age: 33 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n\n     10. Ku. Gushila Nagarao Gaikwad,\n         Age: 37 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     11. Dhondiba Sadashiv Surwanshi,\n         Age: 38 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n\n     12. Sambhaji Madhavrao Kore,\n         Age: 38 years, Occ: Service,\n\n     13. Baburao Vishwanath Nagthane,\n         Age: 38 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::\n                            6                wp2260.92\n\n     14. Ramesh Mariba Gaikwad,\n         Age: 33 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n     15. Namdeo Gangaram Benkhadke,\n         Age: 37 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n     16. Shikh Mahmad Akbar Mahamed Sarwar,\n         Age: 35 years, Occ: Service,\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n          All R\/o. Udgir, c\/o. Govt. Milk\n          Scheme, Udgir, Dist.Latur.      ...RESPONDENTS \n       \n\n\n\n\n                               \n                     \n\n                          ...\n                   \n     Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for petitioners.\n     Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for\n     Mr. P.G. Rodge, Advocate for respondents.       \n                  \n                          ...\n\n\n                              CORAM:  S.S. SHINDE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                              DATE :  9TH MARCH, 2011<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
               The   petitioners   challenge   the   judgment <\/p>\n
     and   order   dated   15-04-1991   in   I.D.A.   No.11\/1987, <\/p>\n
     dated 21-03-1991  in   I.D.A.   No.15\/1987,   dated <\/p>\n
     15-04-1991 in I.D.A.  No.36\/1987,  dated 15-04-1991 <\/p>\n
     in   I.D.A.   No.12\/1987   and   dated   15-04-1991   in <\/p>\n
     I.D.A. No.10\/1987 passed by learned Judge, Labour <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::<\/span>
\n                              7               wp2260.92<\/p>\n
     Court,   Latur,   in   Writ   Petition   Nos.2260\/1992, <\/p>\n
     2261\/1992,   2262\/1992,   2265\/1992   and   2266\/1992 <\/p>\n
     respectively.\n<\/p>\n
     2.         Respondents   herein   filed   Disputes   before <\/p>\n
     the Judge, Labour Court at Latur, stating therein <\/p>\n
     that they were serving as Clerk with the opponent <\/p>\n
     i.e. petitioners herein.  They were called upon to <\/p>\n
     perform   the   duties   on   each   Saturday   in   spite   of <\/p>\n
     the fact that, the five days week was declared by <\/p>\n
     the Government with effect from 01-07-1985.  It is <\/p>\n
     their   further   case   that,   the   work   was   extracted <\/p>\n
     from   them   without   making   any   payment   for   the <\/p>\n
     duties   which   were   performed   by   them   on   such <\/p>\n
     Saturdays. Therefore, wages of such Saturdays are <\/p>\n
     claimed by them with double rate as it it is over <\/p>\n
     time duty.\n<\/p>\n
                The petitioners herein resisted the claim <\/p>\n
     vide   Writ   Statement   Exhibit-C4   dated   08-01-1988.\n<\/p>\n
     It was contended that the wages were paid to the <\/p>\n
     respondents   as   per   Daily   Rated   Labour   Regulation <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::<\/span>
\n                              8                wp2260.92<\/p>\n
     Act.    It was  further  pleaded   that the  applicants <\/p>\n
     are   not   entitled   to   avail   public   holidays   of <\/p>\n
     Saturday. It was also pleaded that eight paid offs <\/p>\n
     are   paid   to   the   workers   in   lieu   of   such   public <\/p>\n
     holidays.   In   such   circumstances,   applicants   are <\/p>\n
     not   entitled   to   receive   any   compensation   for <\/p>\n
     having   perform   the   duty   as   alleged   by   them.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, it was prayed that the Disputes may be <\/p>\n
     dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     3.         The Labour Court framed as many as three <\/p>\n
     issues   for   its   consideration\/determination   on <\/p>\n
     10-01-1989.  The evidence of one of the workers is <\/p>\n
     recorded   at   Exhibit-U2   of   one   Mr.   Omprakash <\/p>\n
     Vishwanathe.   On   behalf   of   the   Department,   it <\/p>\n
     appears   that   evidence   of   the   Administrative <\/p>\n
     Officer, Mr. Shirishkumar Paralkar was recorded in <\/p>\n
     I.D.A.   No.10\/1987.     Both   the   parties   agreed   vide <\/p>\n
     Exhibit-C.5 to consider that evidence for deciding <\/p>\n
     the matter.\n<\/p>\n
                The   Labour   Court   has   framed   issue   No.1 <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::<\/span>
\n                              9                wp2260.92<\/p>\n
     i.e.   Do   the   applicants   1   to   18   prove   that   they <\/p>\n
     have worked for each Saturday since 01-07-1985 as <\/p>\n
     alleged?     Said   issue   is   answered   in   the <\/p>\n
     affirmative.   It is not in dispute that all these <\/p>\n
     employees   have   worked   on   Saturday.     Even   this <\/p>\n
     position is not disputed by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
                The   second   issue   whether   each   of   the <\/p>\n
     applicant   is   entitled   to   receive   wages   at   the <\/p>\n
     double   rate   for   such   duties.     Said   issue   is <\/p>\n
     answered   in   the   negative.   However,   third   issue <\/p>\n
     i.e. whether joint application for such relief is <\/p>\n
     tenable.     The   Court   answered   said   issue   in   the <\/p>\n
     affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
     4.         It appears that, on considering the oral <\/p>\n
     evidence   and   the   submissions   made   before   the <\/p>\n
     Labour   Court,   Labour   Court   recorded   finding   that <\/p>\n
     each   of   the   worker   is   serving   as   a   Clerk.\n<\/p>\n
     Secondly,   each   of   them   had   filed   proceedings   in <\/p>\n
     the  Labour  Court  for  claiming  wages  equal  to  pay <\/p>\n
     scale of Clerk, although each of them was engaged <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::<\/span>
\n                             10                 wp2260.92<\/p>\n
     on daily rated wages.   Though they are working on <\/p>\n
     daily   wages,   as   skilled   worker,   each   of   them   is <\/p>\n
     being paid the wages equal to the pay scale of the <\/p>\n
     Class-III   employee   in   the   scale   of   Clerk.   Though <\/p>\n
     this   fact   is   not   pleaded   by   the   parties,   it <\/p>\n
     appears that the Labour Court, from the perusal of <\/p>\n
     the   record,   found   that   these   employees   are   being <\/p>\n
     paid   the   wages   equal   to   the   pay   scale   of   the <\/p>\n
     Class-III   employees   and   the   pay   scale   of   Clerk.\n<\/p>\n
     The   claim   of   the   applicants   was   restricted   for <\/p>\n
     having performed the duties of Saturdays   for the <\/p>\n
     period of Five days week is applicable as declared <\/p>\n
     by the Government. The Labour Court concluded that <\/p>\n
     if   really   each   of   the   applicant   is   being   paid <\/p>\n
     wages   equal   to   the   pay   scale   of   other   permanent <\/p>\n
     workers   then   the   duties   extracted   from   them   are <\/p>\n
     not for five days in a week but they are six days <\/p>\n
     in   a   week.     With   this   finding,   the   Labour   Court <\/p>\n
     held   that   the   employees   are   entitled   for   wages <\/p>\n
     having   performed   duties   on   Saturdays   as   a <\/p>\n
     condition   precedent   and   accordingly,   the <\/p>\n
     petitioner herein was directed to make the payment <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::<\/span>
\n                            11                wp2260.92<\/p>\n
     of the said amount.   It is admitted position that <\/p>\n
     the said amount has been already disbursed by the <\/p>\n
     petitioner to the respondent-employees.\n<\/p>\n
     5.        Learned A.G.P.  submitted that the Labour <\/p>\n
     Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record <\/p>\n
     that   the   workers   employed   in   a   factory   are <\/p>\n
     entitled only for weekly off after having worked 6 <\/p>\n
     days,   the   Government   issued   specific   directions <\/p>\n
     that the Scheme of 5 days week is not applicable <\/p>\n
     to such employees.  The Labour Court, Latur failed <\/p>\n
     to   appreciate   the   fact   that   the   nature   of   the <\/p>\n
     present application is in the nature of demand of <\/p>\n
     the   workers   and   therefore,   does   not   fall   within <\/p>\n
     purview   of   the   Section   33(C)(2)   and   expressly <\/p>\n
     covered   under   Section   2-K   of   the   Industrial <\/p>\n
     Disputes   Act   and   needs   to   be   adjudicated   by <\/p>\n
     Industrial   Court   only.   Learned   A.G.P.   further <\/p>\n
     submitted   that   the   Labour   Court   lost   the   sight <\/p>\n
     that proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) are in the <\/p>\n
     nature   of   execution   proceeding   and   are   dependent <\/p>\n
     on an existing rights only.   The respondents have <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::<\/span>
\n                             12                wp2260.92<\/p>\n
     no right to claim wages at double rate when they <\/p>\n
     are not covered under the 5 days week scheme.\n<\/p>\n
                Learned   A.G.P.   also   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
     Labour Court gave finding against issue NO.2 that <\/p>\n
     the respondents are not entitled to receive wages <\/p>\n
     at   the   double   rate   for   such   duties   on   Saturdays <\/p>\n
     and  yet directed  for  making  payment  as  per order <\/p>\n
     which is against the findings. The learned A.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
     further   submitted   that   the   operative   part   of   the <\/p>\n
     judgment   of   the   Labour   Court   is   ambiguous   and <\/p>\n
     needs   to   be   given   judicial   findings   by   this <\/p>\n
     Hon’ble   Court.     Learned   A.G.P.   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
     appellant   prayed   for   allowing   the   Writ   Petitions <\/p>\n
     and   for   quashing   and   setting   aside   the   judgment <\/p>\n
     and   order   passed   in   the   Industrial   Dispute <\/p>\n
     Applications, in question, by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
     6.         On   the   other   hand,   learned   Counsel <\/p>\n
     appearing for the respondents submitted that since <\/p>\n
     the   employees   were   getting   pay   scale   like <\/p>\n
     permanent employees and therefore, they were also <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::<\/span>
\n                             13                wp2260.92<\/p>\n
     entitled   to   wages   for   their   work   on   Saturday.\n<\/p>\n
     Government   cannot   discriminate   two   sets   of <\/p>\n
     employees   and   extract   work   of   Saturday   without <\/p>\n
     paying   any   wages,   when   Government   has   declared <\/p>\n
     five   days   week.     Therefore,   learned   Counsel   for <\/p>\n
     the   respondents   submit   that   petitions   may   be <\/p>\n
     dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     7.         I   have   given   due   consideration   to   the <\/p>\n
     submissions   of   the   learned   Counsel   appearing   for <\/p>\n
     respective parties.  I have also carefully perused <\/p>\n
     the   impugned   judgment   and   order   and   also   record <\/p>\n
     and other documents placed on record.  I am of the <\/p>\n
     considered   opinion   that   at   the   relevant   time, <\/p>\n
     Government declared five working days week.  It is <\/p>\n
     admitted   position   that   the   respondents-employees <\/p>\n
     were   getting   wages   equal   to   the   pay   scale   of <\/p>\n
     Class-III   employees   in   the   pay   scale   of   Clerk.\n<\/p>\n
     The   petitioners   cannot   say   that   merely   because <\/p>\n
     they are not absorbed permanently, therefore, more <\/p>\n
     work   can   be   extracted   from   them   on   Saturday <\/p>\n
     without   payment   of   wages.     It   is   the   matter   of <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::<\/span>
\n                             14                wp2260.92<\/p>\n
     fact   that,   all   the   employees   have   worked   on <\/p>\n
     Saturdays.    That  position  is not  disputed  by  the <\/p>\n
     petitioners.   So,   each   of   the   employee   has   worked <\/p>\n
     one   day   more   compared   with   the   duty   of   other <\/p>\n
     workers   who   are   Class-III   employees   engaged   in <\/p>\n
     permanent establishment.\n<\/p>\n
     8.         Labour   Court   has   rightly   concluded   that <\/p>\n
     no discrimination can be permitted in this regard <\/p>\n
     by   giving   weekly   holiday   of   one   day   for   these <\/p>\n
     applicants   and   two   days   to   other   employees   of <\/p>\n
     permanent   establishment   who   are   getting   wages   in <\/p>\n
     the same pay scale.   Nothing was produced by the <\/p>\n
     petitioners   to   show   that   the   payment   of <\/p>\n
     remuneration   for   the   duties   performed   by   the <\/p>\n
     respondents-employees   on   Saturdays   is   paid   to <\/p>\n
     them.     No   such   record   was   made   available   before <\/p>\n
     the   Labour   Court.     Therefore,   in   my   opinion, <\/p>\n
     Labour   Court,   after   appreciating   the   evidence <\/p>\n
     brought   on   record,   has   recorded   finding   in <\/p>\n
     consonance with the documents and evidence placed <\/p>\n
     on   record.     Once   it   is   accepted   that   the <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::<\/span>
\n                             15                wp2260.92<\/p>\n
     respondents-employees  have worked  on Saturday  and <\/p>\n
     there  was  five  working  days  week  declared  by  the <\/p>\n
     State Government and if, the respondents-employees <\/p>\n
     have   worked   on   Saturday   i.e.   6th   day,   they   are <\/p>\n
     entitled   for   wages.   I   do   not   see   any   legal <\/p>\n
     impediment or any provision brought to the notice <\/p>\n
     of   this   Court,   which   prohibits   payment   of   wages <\/p>\n
     for   working   on   6th   day   when   there   is   a   five <\/p>\n
     working   days   week   declared   by   the   Government.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, in my view, and viewed from any angle, <\/p>\n
     possible view has been taken by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, no interference is called for.\n<\/p>\n
                It   is   relevant   to   mention   that, <\/p>\n
     respondents   filed   Contempt   Petition   before   this <\/p>\n
     Court.   Since   no   interim   relief   was   granted   in <\/p>\n
     favour   of   the   petitioners,   in   the   Contempt <\/p>\n
     proceedings, the petitioners have deposited amount <\/p>\n
     and same was allowed to be withdrawn.   Therefore, <\/p>\n
     in  my opinion,   in the facts  and  circumstances  of <\/p>\n
     this  case,  view  taken  by the  Labour  Court  cannot <\/p>\n
     be  faulted.    Hence,  Writ  Petitions  are  devoid  of <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::<\/span>
\n                            16          wp2260.92<\/p>\n
     merits   and   same   stands   dismissed.                 Rule <\/p>\n
     discharged.\n<\/p>\n
                                  [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]<\/p>\n
     sut\/Mar11\/wp2260.92<\/p>\n
                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:04:26 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court General Manager vs Shivaji Basvantrao Patil on 9 March, 2011 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 wp2260.92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 1992 General Manager, Government Milk Scheme, Udgir. …APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Shivaji Basvantrao Patil, Age: Major, Occ: Service, 2. D.P. Yengale, […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGeneral Manager vs Shivaji Basvantrao Patil on 9 March, 2011 - 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\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"General Manager vs Shivaji Basvantrao Patil on 9 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-15T20:43:17+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\\\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"General Manager vs Shivaji Basvantrao Patil on 9 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-15T20:43:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1553,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011\",\"name\":\"General Manager vs Shivaji Basvantrao Patil on 9 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-15T20:43:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"General Manager vs Shivaji Basvantrao Patil on 9 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"General Manager vs Shivaji Basvantrao Patil on 9 March, 2011 - 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\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"General Manager vs Shivaji Basvantrao Patil on 9 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-15T20:43:17+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\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"General Manager vs Shivaji Basvantrao Patil on 9 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-15T20:43:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011"},"wordCount":1553,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011","name":"General Manager vs Shivaji Basvantrao Patil on 9 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-15T20:43:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-vs-shivaji-basvantrao-patil-on-9-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"General Manager vs Shivaji Basvantrao Patil on 9 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/205147","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=205147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205147\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}