{"id":213016,"date":"2007-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007"},"modified":"2014-05-11T07:28:16","modified_gmt":"2014-05-11T01:58:16","slug":"mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Mrs.N.Packiyalakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Mrs.N.Packiyalakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 19\/09\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\n\nW.P.(MD)Nos.6678 of 2007,\nW.P.(MD)Nos.7402 and 7589 of 2007\nand\nM.P.Nos.1+1+2 of 2007\n\n\nMrs.N.Packiyalakshmi\t\t...\t Petitioners in all the W.Ps\n\n\nVs.\n\n\n1.The Union of India\nthrough its Secretary,\nMinistry of Labour,\nShram Sakthi Bhavan,\nRaji Ahamed Kidwani Road,\nNew Delhi.\n\n2.The Central Provident Fund Commissioner,\nMayur Bhavan,\nConnaught Circle,\nNew Delhi.\n\n\n3.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,\nRayapettah High Road,\nChennai - 600 014.\n\n\n4.The Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development\nCorporation Limited,\nIndustrial Estate,\nGuindy,\nChennai -32,\nrep.by its Executive Engineer\t...\tRespondents<\/pre>\n
PRAYER in 6678 of 2007 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
\nMandamus to call for the records relating to the tender notification issued by
\nthe fourth respondent in tender notification No.7474\/Ka.Po\/2007 dated 20.07.2007
\nand quash the same as illegal in so far as insisting of E.P.F. Code is concerned
\nand consequentially to direct the fourth respondent to consider the tender
\nschedule submits by the petitioner without insisting the EPF Code.\n<\/p>\n
PRAYER in 7402 of 2007 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear
\nthe respondents herein from enforcing the provisions of the amended Para-26(2)
\nof the Employees Provident Fund Scheme (EPF Code) in so far as temporary and
\ncasual and site workers engaged by the petitioner in her business.\n<\/p>\n
PRAYER in 7589 of 2007 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear
\nthe fourth respondent from insisting the petitioner to produce “EPF” Code of
\ntheir own” while calling for tenders and also forbearing the respondents from
\nholding any enquiry on the basis of the amended provision relating to para 26(2)
\nof the Employees Provident Fund Scheme in so far as temporary or casual or site
\nworkers engaged by the petitioner in his business.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner  \t…\tMr.M.Ajmal Khan<\/p>\n
^For R-1\t\t… \tMr.P.Krishnasamy\t\t<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n
\tThe petitioner in all these Writ Petitions are registered Contractors with
\nthe Tamil Nadu Small Industries Department Corporation ( for short TIDCO).\n<\/p>\n
\t2.In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are challenging a condition
\nimposed in the tender schedule viz., that the future tenders must be a
\nregistered and must have a registration number given by the Employees’ Provident
\nFund Department under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions
\nAct,1952.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The grievance of the petitioner is that they have been executing various
\nprojects undertaken by the SIDCO.  During the execution of the said project,
\nthey were scrupulously observing all the labour laws.  By the introduction of
\nthis condition, they have been asked to perform certain Acts which are next to
\nimpossibility.  The question of registering with the P.F. authorities and
\nkeeping a permanent registration number does not arise.  In most of the
\nprojects, the construction activities carried on by them which involves
\noutsourcing the work  or employing the workers who are less than members
\nstipulated for coverage under the E.P.F. Act.  Many time the casual employment
\nof workers in construction activity do not involve coverage under E.P.F.Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the contract is
\nawarded to them and in case there is a statutory coverage, they are bound to
\nenforce those statutory obligations.  By putting it as a precondition they have
\nedged out of the competition and therefore they seek the aid of this Court to
\nquash of the condition imposed in the Tender schedules floated by the fifth
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.This Court has given anxious considerations to the submission made by
\nthe petitioners.  This is not a case of introduction of a condition after the
\ntenderers have been awarded to the petitioners.  In fact, the petitioners are
\nyet to make any application pursuant to the tender notification which is
\nimpugned in the Writ Petition.  In case of such tenderers, they are bound by the
\nconditions prescribed by the authority, who are floating the tenders. The
\nquestion of challenging a particular condition as it is not suited to them or
\nthey will be disqualified under that clause cannot be a ground to interfere with
\nany tender conditions.  A tender condition can be impugned only on the
\ntouchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution, if such tenders are floated by
\ninstrumentality’s of the State coming within the meaning of ‘State’ under
\nArticle 12 of the Constitution.  It should be that such a condition will deprive
\na whole classes of contractors who will be edged out in the process of offering
\ntheir tenders and it is intended to benefit one individual or group.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.In the present case, one should examine the context in which such a
\ncondition namely that future contractors must have a permanent register number
\nunder the E.P.F.Act came to be made.  It was through various Court directions
\nboth by the Apex Court and by this Court. Under the provisions of EPF Act, a
\nPrincipal employer is made liable to make good the payments arising out of the
\nprovisions of the E.P.F.Act in case the contractors either do not fulfill their
\nobligations or runs away from the contract.  In such cases, then the entire
\nliability is passed on to the principal employer.  In the present case, it is
\nthe fifth respondent who had floated the tender will be much liable as the
\nprincipal employer.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Further, it it also the obligation of the State to scrupulously follow
\nthe various labour laws and in the course of giving largesse of the State to
\nprivate entrepreneurs by out-sourcing work it will be the bounden duty to see
\nthat of the labour laws must be followed by such of those contractors, who are
\nbound to make profits out of executing those contracts.  In view of the peculiar
\nsituation of the P.F.Act which passes on the entire liability to the principal
\nemployer, any prudent employer may always want to make his position secure so
\nthat a future liabilities are not made against the principal employer only
\nbecause he floated a contract be given to various contractors.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.For the first time the plight of the construction workers came to the
\nnotice of the Supreme Court, when Asian Games were to take place in New Delhi
\nhosted by Delhi Administration. On a letter written by an association by name
\nPeople’s Union for Democratic Rights(PUDR), it was treated as a Writ Petition.
\nThe Supreme Court thereafter looked into the plight of various construction
\nworkers brought from all over India and were made to work for hours together in
\nappalling conditions and abject poverty  and penury. The various sub-contractors
\nand contractors engaged by the Delhi Administration were found to be violating
\nlaws  including the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act,1970.  In that
\ncontext the Supreme Court gave a number of guidelines to various authorities to
\nstrictly implement the provisions of various enactments concerning labour.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.In the decision reported in (1982) 3 SCC 235,PEOPLE’S UNION FOR
\nDEMOCRATIC RIGHTS V. UNION OF INDIA, the<\/a> relevant portions are reproduced
\nbelow:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“15.Before leaving this subject, we may point out with all the emphasis at
\nour command that whenever any fundamental right which is enforceable against
\nprivate individuals such as, for example, a fundamental right enacted in Article
\n17 or 23 or 24 is being violated, it is the constitutional obligation of the
\nState to take the necessary steps for the purpose of interdicting such violation
\nand ensuring observance of the fundamental right by the private individual who
\nis transgressing the same.  Of course, the person whose fundamental right is
\nviolated can always approach the court for the purpose of enforcement of his
\nfundamental right, but that cannot absolve the State from its constitutional
\nobligation to see that there is no violation of the fundamental right of such
\nperson, particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of humanity and is
\nunable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent who is
\nexploiting him.  The Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi
\nDevelopment Authority must therefore be held to be under an obligation to ensure
\nobservance of these various labour laws by the contractors and if the provisions
\nof any of these labour laws are violated by the contractors, the Petitioners
\nvindicating the cause of the workmen are entitled to enforce this obligation
\nagainst the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development
\nAuthority by filing the present writ petition. The preliminary objections urged
\non behalf of the respondents accordingly be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
10.Further in paragraph 16, it was held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t16…..So far as observance of the other labour laws by the contractors is
\nconcerned, the Union of India, the Delhi Administration  and the Delhi
\nDevelopment Authority disputed the claim of the Petitioners that the provisions
\nof these labour laws were not being implemented by the contractors save in a few
\ninstances where prosecutions had been launched against the contractors.  Since
\nit would not be possible for this Court to take evidence for the purpose of
\ndeciding this factual dispute between the parties and we also wanted to ensure
\nthat in any event the provisions of these various laws enacted for the benefit
\nof the workmen were strictly observed and implemented by the contractors, we by
\nour Order dated May 11, 1982 (Sec (1982) 2 SCC 494:1982 SCC (L&S) 262 appointed
\nthree ombudsmen and requested them to make periodical inspections of the sites
\nof the construction work for the purpose of ascertaining whether the provisions
\nof these labour laws were being carried out and the workers were receiving the
\nbenefits and amenities provided for them under these beneficent statutes or
\nwhether there were any violations of these provisions being committed by the
\ncontractors so that on the basis of the reports of the three ombudsmen, this
\nCourt could give further direction in the matter if found necessary.  We may add
\nthat whenever any construction work is being carried out either departmentally
\nor through contractors, the Government or any other governmental authority
\nincluding a public sector corporation which is carrying out such work must take
\ngreat care to see that the provisions of the labour laws are being strictly
\nobserved and they should not wait for any complaint to be received from the
\nworkmen in regard to non-observance of any such provision before proceeding to
\ntake action against the erring officers or contractors, but they should
\ninstitute an effective system of periodic inspections coupled with occasional
\nsurprise inspections by the higher officers in order to ensure that there are no
\nviolations of the provisions of labour laws and the workmen are not denied the
\nrights and benefits to which they are entitled under such provisions and if any
\nsuch violations are found, immediate action should be taken against defaulting
\nofficers or contractors.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Subsequently, the Supreme Court in the judgment relating to labours
\nreported in (1983) 2 SCC 181, onceagain dealt with the plight of the
\nconstruction workers and in which the LABOURERS, SALAL HYDRO PROJECT V. STATE OF
\nJAMMU AND KASHMIR,<\/a> in paragraph No.7 held as follows:-
\n “7….It is only if the officers of the National Hydro electric Power
\nCorporation and the Central Government are sensitive to the misery and suffering
\nof workmen arising from their deprivation and exploitation that they will be
\nable to secure observance of the labour laws and to improve the life conditions
\nof the workmen employed in such construction projects.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Subsequently, the Supreme Court in a petition under Article 32 dealt
\nwith the case of the bonded labourers vide its Judgment relating to BANDHUA
\nMUKTI MORCHA V. UNION OF INDIA,<\/a>  reported in (1984) 3 SCC 161.  The relevant
\nportion in paragraph Nos.37 and 38 it is held as follows:-
\n\t“..37.We must not be content with the law in books but we must have law in
\naction.  If we want our democracy to be a participatory democracy, it is
\nnecessary that law must not only speak justice but must also deliver justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t38….There have also been occasions where the magistrate and judicial
\nofficers have scotched prosecutions and acquitted or discharged the defaulting
\nemployers on hypertechnicalities.  This happens largely because the magistrates
\nand judicial officers are not sufficiently sensitised to the importance of
\nobservance of labour laws with the result that the labour laws are allowed to be
\nignored and breached with utter callusness and indifference and the workmen
\nbegin to feel that the defaulting employers can, by paying a fine which hardly
\ntouches their pocket, escape from the arm of law and the labour laws supposedly
\nenacted for their benefit are not meant to be observed but are merely decorative
\nappendages intended to assuage the conscience of the workmen.  We would
\ntherefore strongly impress upon the magistrates and judicial officers to take a
\nstrict view of violation of labour laws and to impose adequate punishment on the
\nerring employers so that they may realise that it does not pay to commit a
\nbreach of such laws and to deny the benefit of such laws to the workmen.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13.It gave series of directions both to the Central  and the State
\nGovernments in the matter of non-implementation of labour laws and the States
\nwere directed to implement the labour laws in its letter and spirit.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Infact, this Court in the Judgment relating to NELLAI MAVATTA COOLI
\nTHOZHILALAR SANGAM V. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU,<\/a> reported in 1954 Writ law
\nreported 102  rendered by  the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sathidev took the note of the
\nfacts and in paragraphs Nos.8, 9 and 10 held as follows:-
\n “8.In every future contract entered into by third respondent, a clause must be
\nintroduced to the effect that the Contractor is bound by the provisions of Act
\n37 of 1970 and such other enactments, which he is bound to implement.\n<\/p>\n
  9.It is mainly because of the inordinate delay in implementing the provisions
\nof the Act, Petitioner had to spend for filing this writ petition.  By the long
\ndelay sizable sections of the labour force have been deprived of ever so may
\nbenefits, which neither first respndent nor third respondent would compensate
\nthem.  They have lost them once and forever.\n<\/p>\n
  10.When private enterprises fail to remit provident Fund, 100% penalty is
\nimposed irrespective of whether it was due to illegal strikes, 100% power cut,
\nslump in,  international trade; financial crisis for no fault of theirs, etc.
\nWherever socio-beneficial legislations are not implemented, apart from
\nprosecutions, coercive recovery proceedings are taken.  But, when a State owner
\nestablishment avoids implementing a labour enactment, how can it expect a
\ndifferential treatment?”\n<\/p>\n
   15.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two things
\nhas to be taken into consideration before the contract employees to be covered
\nunder the EPF Act.  Namely, that the workmen is a regular workmen and also that
\nthey are liable to be covered by the State Act.  All this theoretical exercise
\nmay be relevant when this Court examines any demand by the P.F. Department with
\nreference to contribution in respect of the petitioner’s establishment.
\nNow in the present case, we are not strictly construing the provisions of the
\nP.F.Act.  We are only concerned with the fifth respondent being a State
\ninstrument authority while parting their own provision or which are to be
\nengaged by the contractors securing itself by such conditions which will not
\nbring any future liability on that account various claims made under the P.F.Act
\nand also seeing that such labour laws are not violated by the future contractors
\nemployed by them.\n<\/p>\n
    16.Infact the condition imposed in the tender schedules notification
\nimpugned in the Writ Petition only enhances the mandate under Part III and Para
\nIV of the Constitution and are not arbitrary as alleged by the contractors.  The
\ninterest of the petitioners who are made contractors is only with a view to
\navoiding various obligations. In the name of liaberlisation, the State cannot be
\na mute spectator to allow the contractors to ignore the welfare of the labour.\n<\/p>\n
    17.The Writ Petitions are misconceived and will stand dismissed.  No costs.
\nConsequently, connected M.Ps are closed.\n<\/p>\n
ssm \t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary,
\n  The Union of India
\n  Ministry of Labour,
\n  Shram Sakthi Bhavan,
\n  Raji Ahamed Kidwani Road,
\n  New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
\n  Mayur Bhavan,
\n  Connaught Circle,
\n  New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
\n  Rayapettah High Road,
\n  Chennai – 600 014.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Executive Engineer
\n  The Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development
\n  Corporation Limited,
\n  Industrial Estate,
\n  Guindy,
\n  Chennai -32,<\/p>\n
Ssm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Mrs.N.Packiyalakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19\/09\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)Nos.6678 of 2007, W.P.(MD)Nos.7402 and 7589 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1+1+2 of 2007 Mrs.N.Packiyalakshmi … Petitioners in all the W.Ps Vs. 1.The Union of India through its […]<\/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-213016","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs.N.Packiyalakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2007 - 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\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs.N.Packiyalakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-11T01:58:16+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs.N.Packiyalakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-11T01:58:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2650,\"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\\\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Mrs.N.Packiyalakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-11T01:58:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs.N.Packiyalakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Mrs.N.Packiyalakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2007 - 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\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs.N.Packiyalakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-11T01:58:16+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs.N.Packiyalakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-11T01:58:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007"},"wordCount":2650,"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\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007","name":"Mrs.N.Packiyalakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-11T01:58:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-n-packiyalakshmi-vs-the-union-of-india-on-19-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs.N.Packiyalakshmi vs The Union Of India on 19 September, 2007"}]},{"@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\/213016","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=213016"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213016\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213016"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}