{"id":21507,"date":"1971-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971"},"modified":"2018-08-07T05:44:11","modified_gmt":"2018-08-07T00:14:11","slug":"management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971","title":{"rendered":"Management Of Panitole Tea Estate vs The Workmen on 18 February, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Management Of Panitole Tea Estate vs The Workmen on 18 February, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2171, \t\t 1971 SCR (3) 774<\/div>\n
Author: I Dua<\/div>\n
Bench: Dua, I.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMANAGEMENT OF PANITOLE TEA ESTATE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE WORKMEN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/02\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nSHELAT, J.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 2171\t\t  1971 SCR  (3) 774\n 1971 SCC  (1) 742\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial    Dispute-Dismissal\t   of\t workmen-Order\t  of\nreinstatement by Labour Court-Reinstatement of compensation-\nCircumstances\tjustifying  reinstatement-Constitlution\t  of\nIndia-, Art. 136-Interference by Supreme Court.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn the course of a domestic enquiry on a charge of pilferage\nagainst B a' part time clerk who was incharge of a godown of\nthe appellant a chit was produced suggesting collusion\twith\nhim  of\t H  another  workman,  The  appellant  instituted  a\ndomestic  enquiry against the workman and he was  dismissed.\nOn  a reference of the Industrial Dispute the  Labour  Court\nheld  that the contents of the chit were too vague and\twere\nprocured  only\tto harass the workman for no fault  of\this,\nthat the domestic enquiry was violative of the principle  of\nnatural\t justice, and its findings perverse and without\t any\nevidence  to support them.  Consequently it ordered the\t re-\ninstatement  of the workman' The management appealed to\t his\nCourt  contending that instead of reinstatement the  workman\nshould\tbe paid compensation.  It also raised the plea\tthat\nit had lost confidence in the workman.\nHELD : The present case is not one in which this Court would\nbe justified in interfering, on appeal under Art. 136 of the\nConstitution, with the order of the tribunal.  The  question\nwhether on setting aside the wrongful dismissal of a workman\nhe should be reinstated or directed to be paid\tcompensation\nis  a  matter within the Judicial discretion of\t the  Labour\nCourt or the Tribunal, dealing with the industrial  dispute,\nthe general rule in the absence of any special circumstances\nbeing of reinstatement.\t In exercising this discretion, fair\nplay  towards the employee on the one hand and\tinterest  of\nthe employer, including considerations of discipline in\t the\nestablishment, on the other, require to be duly safeguarded.\nThis is necessary in the interest both of security of tenure\nof  the employee and of smooth and harmonious working  '  of\nthe  establishment.   Legitimate interests of both  of\tthem\nhave to be kept in view if the order is expected to  promote\nthe  desired  objective\t of  industrial\t peace\tand  maximum\npossible  production.  The past record of the employee,\t the\nnature\tof  the alleged conduction which the  order  of\t the\nemployer is set aside, the nature of the duties performed by\nthe  employee  concerned and the nature\t of  the  industrial\nestablishment  are some of the broad relevant factors  which\nrequire\t to be taken into consideration.  These factors\t are\nmerely illustrative.  Each case has to be decided on its own\nfacts  and  no\thard and fast rule can said  down  to  cover\ngenerally all conceivable contingencies.  Proper balance has\nto  be\tmaintained  between the conflicting  claims  of\t the\nemployer  and the employee without jeopardising\t the  larger\ninterests of industrial peace and progress. [780 D]\nThere  was no evidence to conclude that the management\tlost\nconfidence in the workman.  If the workman is entitled as  a\ngeneral\t rule to be reinstated after his wrongful  dismissal\nis  set\t aside and on the facts it is not possible  to\tfind\ncogent material on which the establishment can genuinely  be\nconsidered  to have lost confidence in the integrity of\t the\nworkman, he\n775\nis  entitled to be reinstated.\tThe suggestion\tthat  having\nregard to the nature of the proceedings against the  workman\nthe management has lost confidence was acceptable. [782 F]\nIf' the workman's dismissal was wrongful then merely because\nproceedings for adjudication of the industrial dispute\thave\ntaken a long time (10 years) was by itself no reason for not\ndirecting  his reinstatement if it was\totherwise  justified\nbeing in accordance with the normal rule. [782 G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION\t Civil Appeal  No.  1137  of
\n1970.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby  special leave from the award dated\tOctober\t 30,
\n1969  of  the  Labour  Court  of  Assam\t and  Dibrugarh\t  in
\nReference, No. 20 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C. Chagla and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
\nK.   P. Gupta, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDun,  J.  In this appeal special leave was  limited  to\t the
\nquestion  whether relief by way of payment  of\tcompensation
\nshould’\t not  be  substituted  for  the\t relief\t by  way  of
\nreinstatement granted by the Labour Court to the workman, H.
\nP. Bhagavati, Store, Clerk.\n<\/p>\n
The  Panitole  Tea Estate belongs to the Jokai\t(Assam)\t Tea
\nCo., Ltd., Panitole.  Depot Line was one of the Out  Gardens
\nunder this Tea Estate and it had a separate godown.  One  B.
\nK.  Borgohain,\ta  part-time clerk was\tin  charge  of\tthis
\ngodown.\t  Ammonia  sulphate fertiliser was  stored  in\tthis
\ngodown, 970 bags having been received there between December
\n12,  1960  and January 5, 1961.\t Pursuant to receipt  of  an
\nanonymous letter that there was pilferage of these bags\t the
\nstock  was checked and 89 bags were found missing.   In\t the
\ncourse of the domestic enquiry against Borgohain a chit (Ex.\n<\/p>\n
12)  was produced by him which suggested H.  P.\t Bhagavati’s
\ncollusion  with\t Borgohain in this  affair.   Bhagavati\t was
\naccordingly  also charge sheeted and after domestic  enquiry
\nhe  was\t dismissed with effect from March  23,\t1961.\tThis
\norder  of dismissal of Bhagavati gave rise to an  industrial
\ndispute which was duly referred to the Labour Court of Assam
\nat  Dibrugarh.\tThe Labour Court by its award dated  October
\n30, 1969 held that the contents of Ex. 12 were too vague  to
\nconnect\t Bhagavati with the offence charged.   According  to
\nthe  Labour Court the management had procured  this  exhibit
\nonly to harass Bhagavati for no fault of his.  The  domestic
\nenquiry\t was also found to be violative of the principle  of
\nnatural’
\n77 6
\njustice and it conclusions perverse, there being no evidence
\nto support them.  Bhagavati was accordingly held entitled to
\nreinstatement  with  all the back wages and  benefits.\t The
\npresent\t appeal\t is  directed against  this  order  and,  as
\nobserved  earlier,  the only question we have to  decide  is
\nwhether Bhagavati should be reinstated or he should be\tpaid
\ncompensation  instead  of reinstatement.  The  dismissal  of
\nBorgohain, it may be pointed out, was not challenged by\t him
\nand  that  order became final.\tIn this appeal\twe  are\t not
\nconcerned with his dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
On  appeal in this Court Shri Chagla has submitted that\t the
\nmanagement has lost confidence in Bhagavati and it would  be
\nunjust\tand improper to force his reinstatement as  a  store
\nclerk  ,on the management after a lapse of ten\tyears.\t The
\nlearned counsel offered to pay to the workman any reasonable
\ncompensation  as may be ordered by this Court.\tReliance  in
\nsupport\t  of   this   submission  against   the\t  order\t  of
\nreinstatement  was  placed on two recent  decision  of\tthis
\nCourt  Ruby  General Insurance Co. Ltd.\t v.  Chiopra(1)\t and
\nHindustan  Steel Ltd. v. A. K. Roy<\/a> (2).\t In the\t first\tcase
\nspecial leave granted by this Court was also limited only to
\nthe  question  whether\tthe relief granted  to\tthe  workman
\nconcerned  should have been reinstatement  or  compensation.
\nOn  a consideration of the facts and circumstances  of\tthat
\ncase this Court had set aside the order of reinstatement and
\ndirected  the  company to pay compensation  to\tthe  workman
\nconcerned.  ,Our  attention has been drawn to  some  of\t the
\nobservations made in that case.\t This Court said there :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  the present case we are of the view\tthat
\n\t      reinstatement  directed  by the  tribunal\t was
\n\t      inexpedient.   The respondent had\t served\t the
\n\t      company in all for a period of twelve  months.
\n\t      It  was not as if he had been induced to\tgive
\n\t      up  any  employment  he  was  engaged  in\t for
\n\t      joining the service of the  appellant-company.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The  company’s  establishment  in\t Delhi\t was
\n\t      comparatively  a small  establishment.   There
\n\t      can  be  no  doubt  that\tthe  position  of  a
\n\t      stenographer in such an establishment would be
\n\t      one  of  confidence and trust as he  would  be
\n\t      taking down dictation and typing out all kinds
\n\t      of  matters including  sometimes\tconfidential
\n\t      and  even\t secret\t matters.   For\t example,  a
\n\t      report  of the working of this branch  to\t the
\n\t      company’s headquarters by the branch  manager,
\n\t      or  a report as regards the working  of  other
\n\t      rival insurance companies in Delhi area, or  a
\n\t      report  regarding promotion and even  demotion
\n\t      of  some\tof the members of the staff  of\t the
\n\t      branch office, and such other matters would be
\n\t      of a highly confidential
\n(1) [1970] 1 L.L.J. 63.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1970] 1 L.L.J.228.\n<\/p>\n
\t      nature.\tIf the branch manager were,  for  cm
\n\t      reason  or  the other to lose  confidence\t and
\n\t      trust  in stenographer working under  him,  it
\n\t      would obviously be unpossible for him to\tgive
\n\t      dictation\t  on   such  matters   to   such   a
\n\t      stenographer.   On  the  assumption  that\t the
\n\t      respondent was made to take dictation and type
\n\t      out  letters in connexion with other  concerns
\n\t      in which the appellant company was  interested
\n\t      and  the\trespondent was not  paid  any  extra
\n\t      remuneration  for\t such work,  the  respondent
\n\t      was,  on\this ‘admission\tretaining  with\t him
\n\t      surreptitiously\t   copies      of      those
\n\t      communications.  As the tribunal has remarked,
\n\t      the  respondent  did so in order\tto  preserve
\n\t      evidence,\t that  he  was\tmade  to  take\tdown
\n\t\t\t    letters  relating to concerns other\t t
\nhan  the
\n\t      appellant-company.   Whether in terms  of\t his
\n\t      employment  as  a\t stenographer  the  regional
\n\t      manager  could  take  such work or  not  is  a
\n\t      matter  in  which we need not go, but  he\t did
\n\t      admittedly  retain with him copies of as\tmany
\n\t      as  32 such communications which he  exhibited
\n\t      as  Exs.\tW. 10 to W. 42.\t These\tcopies\twere
\n\t      clearly the property of the company which\t the
\n\t      respondent  in  no event could retain  in\t his
\n\t      possession   without   the  consent   of\t his
\n\t      employers.   If the regional manager  were  to
\n\t      entertain\t a feeling that, if reinstated,\t the
\n\t      respondent  would in future also\tretain\twith
\n\t      him  copies  of documents\t of  a\tconfidential
\n\t      nature whenever the respondent felt that\tsuch
\n\t      retention would be of use or advantage to him,
\n\t      such  a  feeling on the part of  the  regional
\n\t      manager  that  he\t can  no  longer  trust\t the
\n\t      respondent with any confidential matter cannot
\n\t      be  regarded  as altogether  unjustified.\t The
\n\t      regional\tmanager might well feel that if\t the
\n\t      respondent was capable of collecting  evidence
\n\t      against  the  company,  he  might\t in   future
\n\t      collect perhaps evidence of a more  dangerous,
\n\t      and  harmful nature.  Obviously, if he  cannot
\n\t      repose   confidence  in  the  respondent,\t  if
\n\t      reinstated,  he  cannot make any\tuse  of\t his
\n\t      services,\t  as   a   stenographer.    In\t the
\n\t      circumstances,  we  think\t that  the  tribunal
\n\t      ought  not to have directed his  reinstatement
\n\t      despite its conclusion that the termination of
\n\t      his  services was wrongly made, but  ought  to
\n\t      have awarded suitable compensation instead.”
\n\t      in the second case this Court observed
\n\t      The  question, however, still is\twhether\t the
\n\t      tribunal\twas,  in the  circumstances  of\t the
\n\t      case,  justified in  directing  reinstatement.
\n\t      It is true that some of the decisions of\tthis
\n\t      Court have laid down that where the  discharge
\n\t      or dismissal of a workman is not legal or
\n\t      778<\/span>
\n\t      justified,  the relief which would  ordinarily
\n\t      follow would be reinstatement.  The  Tribunal,
\n\t      however,\t has   the   discretion\t  to   award
\n\t      compensation  instead of reinstatement if\t the
\n\t      circumstances of a particular case are unusual
\n\t      or  exceptional  so as to\t make  reinstatement
\n\t      inexpedient  or improper.\t The  Tribunal\thas,
\n\t      therefore,   to\texercise   its\t  discretion
\n\t      judicially and in accordance with well  recog-
\n\t      nised  principles\t in that regard and  has  to
\n\t      examine  carefully the circumstances  of\teach
\n\t      case and decide whether such a case is one  of
\n\t      those exceptions to the general rule.  If\t the
\n\t      Tribunal\twere to exercise its  discretion  in
\n\t      disregard\t  of  such  circumstances   or\t the
\n\t      principles laid down by this Court it would be
\n\t      a case either of no exercise of discretion  or
\n\t      of  one not legally exercised In\teither\tcase
\n\t      the  High\t Court\tin  exercise  of  its\twrit
\n\t      jurisdiction  can\t interfere  and\t cannot\t  be
\n\t      content  by  simply  saying  that\t since\t the
\n\t      Tribunal has exercised its discretion it\twill
\n\t      not  examine the circumstances of the case  to
\n\t      ascertain\t whether  or not such  exercise\t was
\n\t      properly\tand  in accordance  with  the  well-
\n\t      settled  principles made.\t If the\t High  Court
\n\t      were  to do so, it would be a refusal  on\t its
\n\t      part to exercise jurisdiction.”,
\n\t      And again:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  Tribunal no doubt felt that it  was\t not
\n\t      established whether the investigation and\t the
\n\t      report  following\t it were properly  done\t and
\n\t      made, that the company ought to have disclosed
\n\t      it to the workman and given him an opportunity
\n\t      to   vindicate  himself  and  that  the\tnon-\n<\/p>\n
\t      disclosure of the report made the\t termination
\n\t      illegal and unjustified.\tThat may or may\t not
\n\t      be right.\t But what was relevant, at the stage
\n\t      when  the Tribunal came to decide what  relief
\n\t      the workman was entitled to, was the  question
\n\t      whether  the management genuinely\t apprehended
\n\t      as  a result of the report that, it  would  be
\n\t      risky  to\t retain the workman in\tthe  company
\n\t      service They may have gone wrong in the manner
\n\t      of  terminating the workman’s service as\theld
\n\t      by the Tribunal.\tBut, if the management truly
\n\t      believed\tthat it was not possible  to  retain
\n\t      the  workman  in\tthe  company’s\tservice\t  on
\n\t      grounds of security and consequently could not
\n\t      place  confidence\t in  him  any  longer,\t the
\n\t      present\tcase,\twould  be   one\t  of   those
\n\t      exceptional cases where the general rule as to
\n\t      reinstatement  could not properly be  applied.
\n\t      This  of\tcourse does not mean that  in  every
\n\t      case where the employer says that he has\tlost
\n\t      confidence in the workman, and, therefore, has
\n\t      terminated  his  service\tthat   reinstatement
\n\t      cannot be granted and the
\n\t      779<\/span>
\n\t      Tribunal\thas to award compensation.   On\t the
\n\t      other  hand, if on an examination of  all\t the
\n\t      circumstances of the case, the Tribunal  comes
\n\t      to  the conclusion that the  apprehensions  of
\n\t      the  employer  were genuine and  the  employer
\n\t      truly   felt   that  it\twas   hazardous\t  or
\n\t      prejudicial  to the interests of the  industry
\n\t      to  retain  the  workman\tin  his\t service  on
\n\t      grounds\tof  security,  the  case  would\t  be
\n\t      properly one where compensation would meet the
\n\t      ends of. justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t      On  a consideration of all the  circumstances,
\n\t      the present case, in our’ view, was, one\tsuch
\n\t      ‘case., The Tribunal exercised its  discretion
\n\t      mechanically     without\t   weighing\t the
\n\t      circumstances  of\t the  case.   That  was\t  no
\n\t      exercise of discretion at all.  There is ample
\n\t      authority,  to the effect that if a  statutory
\n\t      tribunal exercises its discretion on the basis
\n\t      of irrelevant considerations or without regard
\n\t      to  relevant  considerations,  certiorari\t may
\n\t      properly issue to quash its order. (See S.  A.
\n\t      de  Smith, Judicial Review  of  Administrative
\n\t      Action   (2nd  ed)  pp.  324-325.\t  One\tsuch
\n\t      relevant consideration, the disregard of which
\n\t      would    render\tits   order   amenable\t  to
\n\t      interference,   would  be\t  the\twell-settled
\n\t      principles  laid down in decisions binding  on
\n\t      the   Tribunal  to  whom\tthe  discretion\t  is
\n\t      entrusted.   The refusal by the High Court  to
\n\t      interfere was equally mechanical and  amounted
\n\t      to refusal to exercise its jurisdiction.\t Its
\n\t      order,\ttherefore,   becomes\tliable\t  to
\n\t      interference.”\n<\/p>\n
Shri  Chagla has argued that in the present case  there\t was
\nexercise   of judicial discretion by the Labour,  Court\t and
\nimpugned order was made mechanically without considering the
\nrelevant circumstances and applying its mind to the question
\nas to which of the two reliefs was more appropriate.
\nOn behalf of the respondents it is submitted that Bhagavati,
\nthe  workman  concerned in this case, is  innocent  and\t the
\nmanagement was found by the Labour Court on evidence to have
\nresorted  to unfair labour practice.  The chit, Ex. 12,\t was
\nalso held not to be in the handwriting of Bhagavati.  It  is
\nfurther\t emphasised  that criminal  proceedings\t ‘Were\talso
\nstarted\t against  Bhagavati  but he was\t discharged  in\t the
\ncriminal  case\tfor want of evidence implicating  him.\t The
\nrespondent’s   learned\tcounsel\t has,  in  support  of\t his
\nsubmission,, drawn our attention to The Punjab National Bank
\nLtd.  v.  Its Workmen<\/a>(1), M. L. Bose & Co. (P) Ltd.  v.\t Its
\nEmployees(1)  and Workmen of United Bleachers (P)  Ltd.,  v.
\nUnited\tBleachers  (P) Ltd . (3), (a decision  High  Court).
\nIn the Punjab
\n(1)[1960] 1 S.C.R 806. (2) [1961] 11 L.L.J. 107 (S.C.)
\n(3)[1968] 1 L.L.J 529
\n780<\/span>
\nNational Bank case(1) it was observed that the propriety  of
\nreinstatement in a case of wrongful or illegal dismissal-is’
\nnormally  a  question  of  fact\t and  where  the  industrial
\ntribunal  on a proper consideration of the relevant  factors
\nrefuses\t to  pass such an order the Supreme Court  would  be
\nreluctant  in  the  absence of any  general  or\t substantial
\nquestion  of  law  to  interfere  under\t Art.  136  of\t the
\nConstitution.  According to the counsel where  reinstatement
\nhas  been ordered by the court or tribunal in an  industrial
\ndispute\t arising  out of dismissal of a workman\t this  Court
\nshould, in ‘the absence of special circumstances, decline to
\ninterfere with that order on special leave appeal.   Support
\nfrom the case of M. L. Bose & Co. (P) Ltd. (2) is sought for
\nthe  contention that reinstatement is the normal  rule\twhen
\ndismissal  is held to be wrongful and it is immaterial\tthat
\nthe employer has since employed other workmen.\tThe case  of
\nUnited\tBleachers(,) follows the observations of this  Court
\nin  the case of Punjab National Bank Ltd. (1), M. L. Bose  &
\nCo. (P) Ltd. (2) and Swadesamitran Ltd. v. Their Workmen<\/a>(4).
\nIn our opinion the present case is not one in which we would
\nbe justified in interfering on appeal under Art. 136 of\t the
\nConstitution with the, order of the Tribunal.  The  question
\nwhether on setting aside the wrongful dismissal of a workman
\nhe should be reinstated or directed to. be paid compensation
\nis  a  matter within the Judicial discretion of\t the  Labour
\nCourt or the Tribunal, dealing with the industrial  dispute,
\nthe general rule in the absence of any special circumstances
\nbeing  of  reinstatement.  In  exercising  this\t discretion,
\nfairplay  towards the employee on the one hand and  interest
\nof  the employer, including considerations of discipline  in
\nthe  establishment,  on\t the  other,  require  to  be\tduly
\nsafeguarded.   This  is necessary in the  interest  both  of
\nsecurity  of  tenure  of  the employee\tand  of\t smooth\t and
\nharmonious   working  of  the\testablishment.\t  Legitimate
\ninterests  of  both of them have to be kept in view  it\t the
\norder  is  expected  to promote\t the  desired  objective  of
\nindustrial peace and maximum possible production.  The\tpast
\nrecord\tof the employee, the nature of the  alleged  conduct
\nfor which action was taken against him, the grounds on which
\nthe  order of the employer is set aside, the nature  of\t the
\nduties performed by the employee concerned and the nature of
\nthe industrial establishment are some of the broad  relevant
\nfactors\t which require to be taken into consideration.\t The
\nfactors\t just stated are merely illustrative and it ‘is\t not
\npossible  to exhaustively enumerate them.  Each case has  to
\nbe decided on its own facts and no hard and fast rule can be
\nlaid down to cover generally all conceivable  contingencies.
\nProper balance has to be maintained between the\t conflicting
\nclaims of the employer and the employee
\n(1)  [1960] 1 S.C.R.806. (3)  [1968] 1 L.L.J. 529.
\n(2)  [1961] 2 L.L.J.107 (S.C.). (4)\t[1960] 1 L.L.J.504.
\n78 1
\nwithout\t jeopardising  the larger  interests  of  industrial
\npeace and progress.  In Hindustan Steel Ltd.’s case(1)\tthis
\nCourt substituted the order of reinstatement by an order  of
\npayment of compensation on the ground that the police report
\nand  the  security officer’s recommendation to\tthe  Company
\nshowed that it was not desirable for reasons of security  to
\nreinstate the employee., In that case it was observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “As   exceptions\tto  the\t general   rule\t  of
\n\t      reinstatement,  there  have been\tcases  where
\n\t      reinstatement  has  not  been  considered\t  as
\n\t      either desirable or expedient.  These were the
\n\t      cases where there had been strained  relations
\n\t      between  the employer and the employee,  where
\n\t      the  post held by the aggrieved  employee\t had
\n\t      been  one\t of trust and confidence  or  where,
\n\t      though\tdismissal    or\t   discharge\t was
\n\t      unsustainable  owing to some infirmity in\t the
\n\t      impugned\torder,\tthe employee was,  found  to
\n\t      have been guilty of an activity subversive  of
\n\t      or   prejudicial\tto  the\t interests  of\t the
\n\t      industry.\t  These\t cases are to  be  found  in
\n\t      Assam  Oil Co. Ltd. v. Workmen<\/a>(1); Workmen  of
\n\t      Charottar Gramodhar Sahakari Mandali Ltd.\t v.-
\n\t      Charottar Gramodhar Sahakari Mandali  Ltd.(3);
\n\t      Doomur  Dulung Tea Estate v.  Workmen<\/a>(4))\t and
\n\t      Ruby  General  Insurance\tCo. Ltd.  v.  P.  P.
\n\t      Chopra<\/a>(5).   These are  however,\tillustrative
\n\t      case,%  where  an exception was  made  to\t the
\n\t      general  rule.   No hard and fast rule  as  to
\n\t      which  circumstances  would in  a\t given\tcase
\n\t      constitute  an exception to the  general\trule
\n\t      can  possibly be laid down as the Tribunal  in
\n\t      each case keeping the objectives of industrial
\n\t      adjudication  in\tmind, must in  a  spirit  of
\n\t      fairness\tand  justice confront  the  question
\n\t      whether the circumstances of the case  require
\n\t      that   an\t  exception  should  be\t  made\t and
\n\t      compensation would meet the ends of justice.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The general rule of reinstatement in the absence of  special
\ncircumstances was also recognised in the case of Workmen  of
\nAssam Match Co. Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour  Court
\nA  & anr. (6) and has again been affirmed recently  in\tM\/s.
\nTulsidas  Paul v. The Second Labour Court, W.B. & ors.<\/a>\t(7).
\nIn  Messrs Tulsidas Paul(7) it has been emphasised  that  no
\nhard  and  fast\t rule  as  ‘to\twhich  circumstances   would
\nestablish  an  exception to the general rule could  be\tlaid
\ndown and the Tribunal must In each case decide the  question
\nin  a  spirit of fairness and justice in  keeping  with\t the
\nobjectives of industrial adjudication.
\n(1) [1970] I.L.L.J. 288. (2) (1969) 3 S.C.R. 457.
\n(3)  C.A. 382\/66 d\/14.-8-1967. (4) C.A.\t 5161-1966  d\/26-10-\n<\/p>\n
1967<\/span><\/p>\n
(5) [1970] I.L.L.J.63. (6) C.As. 1070-1071\/1963 d\/27-10-64.
\n(7)  C.A. 1607\/1966 d\/3-2-1971.\n<\/p>\n
78 2
\nIn   the  present case Shri Chagla has laid main  stress  on
\nthe  submission that the management has lost  confidence  in
\nBhagavati’s  integrity\tand it would be wholly\timproper  to
\nforce  his rein.statement on the management.  The  store  of
\nwhich  this workman was in charge, according to the  learned
\ncounsel,  contains ,goods worth lakhs of rupees and  in\t the
\nabsence\t of  the requisite confidence in his  integrity\t the
\norder  of  reinstatement  is likely to\tharm  the  cause  of
\nindustrial  peace in the appellant concern.   The  appellant
\nhas  expressed willingness to pay any reasonable, amount  by
\nway of compensation.  We have in support of the plea of want
\nof confidence been taken through the correspondence  between
\nthe  management and Bhagavati.\tFrom that correspondence  we
\nare  unable to conclude that the management lost  confidence
\nin  Bhagavati because of the lapses mentioned  therein.\t  It
\nappears\t that  it  was only when  the  management  suspected
\nBhagavati’s  collusion\twith Borgohain that  the  management
\nfelt that his integrity was questionable.  That chit  having
\nbeen  found  not  to  be  in  Bhagavati’s  handwriting\t and
\nBhagavati’s dismissal having been held to be wrongful we are
\nunable\tto sustain the plea of want of confidence raised  by
\nShri Chagla.  It is significant that no such plea was sought
\nto  be\tsubstantiated  before  the  Labour  Court.   It\t  is
\nundoubtedly  true  that the store of the  Tea  Estate  would
\ncontain\t goods\tof  substantial value and  a  person  really
\nsuspected  of  being untrustworthy may\tnot  justifiably  be
\nforced\ton the unwilling employer, but that aspect  requires
\ndetermination  on  facts  which should\thave  been  properly
\nplaced\tbefore the Labour Court and a finding secured  after
\nappropriate trial.  The suggestion that having regard to the
\nnature, of the proceedings against Bhagavati, the management
\nhas lost confidence is unacceptable.  A similar argument was
\nrepelled in the case of Assam, Match Co.(1). If the  workman
\nis  entitled  as a general rule to be reinstated  after\t his
\nwrongful dismissal is set aside and ,on the facts it is\t not
\npossible to find cogent material on which the  establishment
\ncan  genuinely be considered to have lost confidence in\t the
\nintegrity  of the workman he is entitled to  be\t reinstated.
\nThe  next. argument that Bhagavati should not be  forced  on
\nthe  management\t after\ta  lapse of  ten  years\t is  equally
\nunacceptable  because  if his dismissal\t was  wrongful\tthen
\nmerely\t because   proceedings\tfor  adjudication   of\t the
\nindustrial  dispute have taken a long time is by  itself  no
\nreason\tfor not directing his reinstatement if it is  other-
\nwise  justified\t being in accordance with  normal  rule.   A
\nsimilar\t contention was also repelled in the case  of  Assam
\nMatch  Co.(,)  In  Swadesamitrans case(1)  also\t this  Court
\nobserved that in the ,case of wrongful dismissal,  discharge
\nor retrenchment a claim for reinstatement cannot be defeated
\nmerely\tbecause\t time has elapsed or that the  employer\t has
\nengaged\t fresh\thands.\t We are, therefore,  unable  on\t the
\nexisting record to sustain the appellants sub-
\n(1) C.As. 1070-1071\/1963d\/27-10-64.
\n(2) [1960] I.L.L.J. 504
\n\t\t\t    783<\/span>
\nmission\t that the order of reinstatement made by the  Labour
\nCourt  suffers\tfrom  any  legal  infirmity  justifying\t its
\nsubstitution  by an order of payment of compensation to\t the
\nworkman.   A suggestion has been thrown by Shri Chagla\tthat
\nin all probability the employee must have secured employment
\nelsewhere as he could not have remained idle all these years
\nan payment of compensation in place of reinstatement  would,
\ntherefore,  cause  him\tno prejudice.\tOn  behalf,  of\t the
\nemployee  it  is denied that he had been  employed  anywhere
\nelse during this period.  In our opinion, this matter  being
\ncontroversial  should  have been raised\t before\t the  Labour
\nCourt and we are not in a position to express any opinion on
\nit in the present proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.\tIn the\tcir-
\ncumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs in
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\nL1100Sup.CI\/71\n784<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Management Of Panitole Tea Estate vs The Workmen on 18 February, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2171, 1971 SCR (3) 774 Author: I Dua Bench: Dua, I.D. PETITIONER: MANAGEMENT OF PANITOLE TEA ESTATE Vs. RESPONDENT: THE WORKMEN DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/02\/1971 BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, I.D. SHELAT, J.M. CITATION: 1971 AIR […]<\/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-21507","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nManagement Of Panitole Tea Estate vs The Workmen on 18 February, 1971 - 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\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Management Of Panitole Tea Estate vs The Workmen on 18 February, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971\" \/>\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=\"1971-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-07T00:14:11+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Management Of Panitole Tea Estate vs The Workmen on 18 February, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T00:14:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971\"},\"wordCount\":3586,\"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\\\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971\",\"name\":\"Management Of Panitole Tea Estate vs The Workmen on 18 February, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T00:14:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Management Of Panitole Tea Estate vs The Workmen on 18 February, 1971\"}]},{\"@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":"Management Of Panitole Tea Estate vs The Workmen on 18 February, 1971 - 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\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Management Of Panitole Tea Estate vs The Workmen on 18 February, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-07T00:14:11+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Management Of Panitole Tea Estate vs The Workmen on 18 February, 1971","datePublished":"1971-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T00:14:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971"},"wordCount":3586,"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\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971","name":"Management Of Panitole Tea Estate vs The Workmen on 18 February, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T00:14:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-vs-the-workmen-on-18-february-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Management Of Panitole Tea Estate vs The Workmen on 18 February, 1971"}]},{"@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\/21507","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=21507"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21507\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}