{"id":20595,"date":"2005-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005"},"modified":"2018-10-18T09:07:28","modified_gmt":"2018-10-18T03:37:28","slug":"dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005","title":{"rendered":"Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs Bhola Singh on 8 February, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs Bhola Singh on 8 February, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1262-63 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nDhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBhola Singh\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/02\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nN. Santosh Hegde & S.B. Sinha\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Respondent herein was appointed as a trainee\/apprentice  in the
\nyear 1986 purported to be in terms of a scheme sponsored by the State
\nGovernment for training the cane growers.  According to the Appellant, in
\nthe year 1986, 45 such trainees had been interviewed and 11 of the them
\nhaving been found fit were absorbed in its regular service.  The Respondent
\nherein allegedly did not qualify therefor. He along with remaining trainees
\ncontinued to perform their duties as  trainees\/apprentices.  The scheme
\nsponsored by the State Government having come to an end on 16.11.1987
\nand no fund therefor having been made available, the services of all the
\nremaining 34 trainees were terminated. The Respondent was paid due
\ncompensation as envisaged under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
\nAct.   He, however, raised an industrial dispute pursuant whereto and in
\nfurtherance whereof a notification was issued on or about 13.12.1991 by the
\nAppropriate Government referring the following dispute for adjudication
\nbefore the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Rampur :\n<\/p>\n
“Whether the separation\/deprivation of Mr. Bhole
\nSingh S\/o Shri Sukhdev Singh from the service
\nw.e.f. 16.11.1987 is unjustified and illegal?  If yes,
\nthen the concerned workman would be entitled to
\nget what relief\/benefit and with what details.”\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore the Labour Court a contention was raised by the Respondent
\nherein  that his services were terminated by the Appellant by way of unfair
\nlabour practice as he had raised a purported demand for his regularization in
\nservices as also non-payment of minimum wages.  He contended that the
\nAppellant had regularized the services of 11 Field Supervisors but he was
\nnot.  According to him, he was called for interview along with others by a
\nletter dated 7.11.1987.  He contended that he had not been absenting with
\neffect from 1.6.1987 as was alleged in the said letter dated 7.11.1987, but
\ndespite the same, his services were terminated on 2.6.1987.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe case of the Appellant, on the other hand, is that the services of the
\nRespondent along with the persons similarly situated had been terminated as
\nthe scheme sponsored by the State Government had come to an end.\n<\/p>\n
Before the Labour Court the principal contention appears to have been
\nraised by the Respondent herein was non-compliance of the requirements of
\nSection 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which was rejected.\n<\/p>\n
The Labour Court in its award held :\n<\/p>\n
“On the contrary, the version of the employer is
\nthat Mr. Bhole Singh was engaged as trainee in the
\ncane development department.  During training
\nperiod the workman was getting stipend.  That in
\nthe year 1986 all the candidates were interviewed
\nby the employer all 11 trainees were selected and
\nthey were appointed.  Thereafter the training
\nscheme came to an end.  After the end of the
\ntraining scheme, requiring trainees were not
\nrequired.  The trainees who could qualify the
\ninterview, their arrangement was dispensed with
\nby paying one month’s notice pay and 15 days
\nstipend for every completed year of service
\nthrough cheque on dated 16.11.1987 by way of
\nretrenchment.  But workman refused to receive the
\ncheque.  Consequently, the cheque of retrenchment
\ncompensation was sent by Registered post to
\nworkman, which was received by him on dated
\n23.11.1987.  Hence, the services of the workman
\nwere terminated as per rules.  In addition, it was
\nalso stated that workman was never engaged on
\nseasonal a permanent post and he is a trainee, as
\nsuch he does not fall within the ambit of definition
\nof workman.  That there are four trade unions in
\nthe industry but no union is interested in the
\ndispute.\n<\/p>\n
\tBoth the parties admit the fact that workman
\nhas worked for more than 240 days and it is also
\nadmitted that his service  was terminated w.e.f.
\n16.11.1987 and at the time of termination of the
\nservice, he was paid one month’s notice pay and
\nretrenchment compensation @ 15 days stipend for
\nevery completed year of service.  It has not been
\nobjected from the workman side that Employer has
\nnot complied with the provisions of sec. 6N only it
\nhas been stated that the action has been initiated
\ndramatically and the provision of sec. 6 of the
\nIndustrial Dispute Act, has been complied with.
\nBut it has not been stated that which provision of
\nsec. 6 has not been complied with.  Since the
\nworkman has been paid one month’s notice pay in
\nlieu of notice and retrenchment compensation, as
\nsuch the provisions of said section were fully
\ncomplied with.”\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore the Labour Court it was stated by the Respondent himself that
\nno appointment letter was issued in his favour and at the end of the scheme
\nhis services were terminated but his contention was that as  no appointment
\nletter was issued, his services could not have been terminated,  but the same
\nwas not accepted by the Labour Court.  Another contention which was raised
\nby the Respondent before the Labour Court was that as 11 other trainees had
\nbeen regularized in services, the impugned order of termination was bad in
\nlaw as it would come within the purview of definition of ‘retrenchment’.
\nThe Labour Court in its Award held that  the termination of the
\nservices of the Respondent was carried out in compliance of the provisions
\nof Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, observing :\n<\/p>\n
\t“Hence in my opinion, the said provision
\nhas been fully complied with, which has been held
\nby the Honourable Court in the above case.  In
\nbrief disputed workman was a Trainee and
\nremained in the employment for more than 240
\ndays.  He could not qualify the interview.  The
\nscheme, under which he was imparting training,
\nwas closed.  Hence his work was not required.\n<\/p>\n
The disputed worker comes within the definition
\nof workman.  Since there was no requirement of
\nwork for him, the Employer retrenchment has
\ncomplying in the provisions of Sec. 6N of the said
\nAct.  It is the simple matter of retrenchment in
\nwhich the employer has fully complied with the
\nrelated provisions.  Hence in my opinion, the
\nservice of the worker is terminated as per rules and
\nlegally.”\n<\/p>\n
\tA learned Single Judge of the High Court, however, in the Writ
\nPetition filed by the Respondent herein questioning the said Award, by
\nreason of the impugned judgment dated 27.9.2001 relying on or on the basis
\nof a decision of the Division Bench of the said Court in Smt. Shipra Ghoshal
\nand Others vs. Secretary, Department of Cane, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow
\nand Others [1990 (60) FLR 870] came to the conclusion that the Appellant
\nadopted unfair labour practice in view of the fact that the Respondent
\ndemanded wages of the Supervisory grade and furthermore there could not
\nbe any justification for not employing him as others had been absorbed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel appearing on behalf of  the Appellant would
\nsubmit that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the
\nimpugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration the finding
\nof fact arrived at by the Labour Court that the interview in question had been
\nheld in the year 1986 when 45 trainees were interviewed and out of them
\nonly eleven were taken in service and services of no other trainee had been
\nregularized after the scheme came to an end.\n<\/p>\n
\tDrawing our attention to the letter dated  7.11.1987, the learned
\ncounsel would contend that from a perusal thereof,  it would appear that the
\nRespondent was asked to present himself for duty as he had been absenting
\nhimself w.e.f. 1.6.1987 and not for the purpose of  appearing before any
\nselection committee.  Our attention was also drawn to the letter of
\ntermination dated 16.11.1987 wherein the absence of the Respondent was
\nreiterated and the order of termination was issued on the ground that the
\ntraining scheme had been withdrawn by the State Government.\tThe learned
\ncounsel would urge that a trainee\/apprentice has no legal right to be
\nabsorbed in regular service of the employer.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel appearing on behalf of  the Respondent, on the
\nother hand, would support the judgment of the High Court contending that
\nfrom a perusal of the Award passed by the Labour Court itself it would
\nappear that a contention as regard unfair labour practice on the part of the
\nAppellant herein was raised on the premise that the services of 11 other
\ntrainees\/apprentices had been regularized whereas the services of the
\nRespondent had not been and, thus, he had been discriminated against.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Respondent herein admittedly was appointed as a trainee in the
\nCane Department of the Appellant.  From a perusal of the  Award of the
\nLabour Court, as has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that one of the
\ncontentions raised before it was that although his services were terminated at
\nthe end of the scheme but as no appointment letter was issued, such
\ntermination was illegal.  A decision of the Allahabad High Court  Shipra
\nGhoshal (supra) also appears to have been cited wherein it was held that the
\nfactum of such termination having been made as the scheme came to end
\nshould be mentioned in the order of termination itself.  From a bare perusal
\nof the said letter dated 16.11.1987, it would appear that the fact as regard
\nwithdrawal of the training scheme indeed had been mentioned therein; the
\nreason for such termination being the withdrawal of the scheme by the State
\nGovernment.  So far as the purported regularization of services of other 11
\nother trainees by the Appellant is concerned, it is manifest that a plea was
\nraised to the effect by the Appellant herein that it was only in the year 1986,
\nthat they, out of 45 trainees, were appointed after an interview was held for
\nthat purpose and having been found fit therefor.    In the letter dated
\n7.11.1987 issued to the Respondent by the Appellant, it is stated :\n<\/p>\n
“You have been absent since 1.6.87.  You are
\nnotified that on receiving this intimation you must
\npresent yourself immediately or by 16th November,
\n1987 failing which disciplinary steps will be taken
\nagainst you.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Respondent herein,  therefore, was not asked to appear before the
\nInterview Board on 16.11.1987 as alleged by him.  The positive case of the
\nRespondent before the Labour Court was that on receipt of the said letter, he
\nappeared before the competent authority on 16.11.1987, when he contended
\nthat he had not been absenting from duty but had been prevented from
\njoining his duties.  From the Award of the Labour Court it also does not
\nappear that any statement was made before it by the Respondent to the effect
\nthat he had appeared before an Interview Board.  Even such a contention
\ndoes not appear to have been raised at the time of raising the industrial
\ndispute as no reference as regard non-regularization of his services by the
\nAppellant was made.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf the Respondent was appointed in terms of the Apprentices Act,
\n1961, he will not be a workman, as has been held by this Court in Mukesh
\nK. Tripathi vs. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Others [(2004) 8 SCC
\n387] and U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Shiv Mohan Singh and Another<\/a>
\n[(2004) 8 SCC 402].\n<\/p>\n
\tIn terms of the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961, a trainee or
\nan apprentice has no right to be absorbed in services.  It is trite that if  the
\nprovisions of the Apprentices Act applies, the provisions of the Labour
\nLaws would have no application.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Respondent advisedly raised the question of applicability of the
\nU.P. Industrial Disputes Act having regard to the provisions of the
\nApprentices Act but even assuming that he was a workman within the
\nmeaning of the provisions thereof, the Labour Court had unhesitatingly came
\nto the conclusion that the statutory requirements for effecting a valid
\nretrenchment in terms thereof had been complied with.  A finding of fact has
\nalso been arrived at by the Labour Court that the scheme  sponsored by the
\nState Government had come to an end.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court, thus, in our opinion committed a manifest error in
\ncoming to the conclusion that the Appellant is guilty of commission of
\nunfair labour practice only on the premise that the services of 11 similarly
\nsituated had been regularized without taking into consideration the materials
\nplaced on records as also the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court
\nthat the services of such persons had been regularized in the year 1986.  The
\nHigh Court further failed to take notice of the fact that according to the
\nAppellant, the Respondent herein did not qualify for his absorption at that
\ntime and, thus, his services continued as apprentice with several other
\ntrainees and it was only when the scheme came to an end, the services of all
\nthe trainees had been terminated.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhen a workman is appointed in terms of a scheme on daily wages,
\nhe does not derive any legal right to be regularized in his service.  It is now
\nwell known that completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year may
\nnot by itself be a ground for directing regularization particularly in a case
\nwhen the workman had not been appointed in accordance with the extant
\nrules.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn. and Another vs. Digambara
\nRao and Others<\/a> [(2004 ) 8 SCC 262],  this Court held : :
\n“It may not be out of place to mention that
\ncompletion of  240 days of continuous service in a
\nyear may not by itself be a ground for directing an
\norder of regularization.  It is also not the case of the
\nRespondents that they were appointed in accordance
\nwith the extant rules.  No direction for regularization
\nof their services, therefore, could be issued. [See A.
\nUmarani vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies<\/a> (2004)
\n7 SCC 112]  and Pankaj Gupta vs. State of Jammu
\n& Kashmir<\/a> [(2004) 8 SCC 353]  Submission of Mr.
\nMaruthi Rao to the effect that keeping in view the
\nfact that the Respondents are diploma-holders and
\nthey have crossed the age of 40 by now, this Court
\nshould not interfere with the impugned judgment is
\nstated to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t[See also Mahendra L. Jain and Others vs. Indore Development
\nAuthority and Others<\/a>  JT 2004 (10) SC 1]<\/p>\n
The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shipra Ghoshal (supra)
\nstands entirely on a different footing.  In that case, a finding of fact as regard
\nfactual discrimination against similarly situated persons was arrived at.  It
\nwas further noticed that the petitioners therein were not appointed for a
\nparticular scheme and they had been transferred from one place to another
\nand on that ground it was opined that those who were not appointed in a
\nparticular scheme could not be axed out on the ground that their
\nappointments were made in a particular scheme, particularly when there was
\nnothing in their appointment letters to show the same..  The said decision of
\nthe Allahabad High Court does not advance the case of the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is now well-settled that even in a case where the services of a
\nworkman have been terminated without complying with the provisions of
\nSection 6N of the Industrial Disputes Act, a direction for reinstatement shall
\nnot ordinarily be issued, in the event, the termination of services becomes
\nco-terminus with the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be
\nsustained, which is set aside accordingly.  The appeal is allowed.  However,
\nin the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs Bhola Singh on 8 February, 2005 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1262-63 of 2003 PETITIONER: Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. RESPONDENT: Bhola Singh DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/02\/2005 BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde & S.B. Sinha JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20595","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs Bhola Singh on 8 February, 2005 - 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\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs Bhola Singh on 8 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-18T03:37:28+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs Bhola Singh on 8 February, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-18T03:37:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2554,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005\",\"name\":\"Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs Bhola Singh on 8 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-18T03:37:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs Bhola Singh on 8 February, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs Bhola Singh on 8 February, 2005 - 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\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs Bhola Singh on 8 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-18T03:37:28+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs Bhola Singh on 8 February, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-18T03:37:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005"},"wordCount":2554,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005","name":"Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs Bhola Singh on 8 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-18T03:37:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhampur-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-bhola-singh-on-8-february-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs Bhola Singh on 8 February, 2005"}]},{"@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\/20595","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=20595"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20595\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20595"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20595"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20595"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}