{"id":227810,"date":"2007-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007"},"modified":"2017-10-22T02:22:25","modified_gmt":"2017-10-21T20:52:25","slug":"the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 August, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 17\/08\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\n\nWRIT PETITION (MD) No.515 of 2004,\nWRIT PETITION (MD) Nos.516 of 2004,\n7415 and 7416 of 2005\nand\nW.P.M.P.(MD)Nos.486 and 487 of 2007\n\n\n\nW.P.(MD)Nos.515 and 516 of 2004\n\nThe Management,\nC.A.V.Cotton Mills,\nVella Bommanpatti,\nVadamadurai,\nDindigul\nthrough its General Manager   ..   \tPetitioner in Writ \t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tPetitions.\n\n\nvs.\n\n\n1.The Presiding Officer,\n  Labour Court,\n  District Court Complex,\n  Tiruchirappalli.             ..  \t1st respondent in\n\t\t\t\t\tW.P.(MD)Nos.515 and\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t516 of 2004\n\n\n2.P.Balasubramanian            ..  \t2nd respondent in\n                                  \tW.P.(MD)No.515 of 2004\n\n\n3.P.Muniappan                  ..  \t2nd respondent in\n                                  \tW.P.(MD)No.516 of 2004\n\n\n\n\tWrit Petition (MD) No.515 and 516 of 2004 filed under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of\nthe 1st respondent in Industrial Dispute 25\/97, 26\/27 quash his award dated\n22.3.2004.\n\n\nW.P.(MD)No.7415 and 7416 of 2005\n\n\nP.Balasubramani               ..  \tPetitioner in W.P.(MD)\n                                        No.7415 of 2005\n\n\nP.Muniyappan                  ..  \tPetitioner in W.P.(MD)\n                                        No.7416 of 2005\n\nvs.\n\n\n1.The Presiding Officer,\n  Labour Court, Trichirappallai.\n2.The Management of\n  C.A.V.Cotton Mills Ltd.,\n  Vella Bomman Patti,\n  Dindigul.                  \t..  \tRespondents in\n                                   \tW.P.(MD)Nos.7415 and\n                                   \t71416 of 2005\n\n\n\tWrit Petition (MD) Nos.7415 and 7416 of 2005 filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for\nthe records pertaining to the preliminary award dated 21.10.2003 and also the\nfinal award dated 22.3.2004 passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.25\/97 and\n26\/97 respectively insofar as holding that the charges against the petitioners\nwere proved and on that ground, denying him back wages and other attendant\nbenefits and to quash the same and for a direction to the second respondent to\nreinstate him with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant\nbenefits and award costs.\n\n\n!Mr. T.Ravichandran \t...\tfor petitioners in  W.P.\n                            \t(MD)Nos.515 and 516 of 2004\n                             \tand for 1st respondent in\n                             \tW.P.(MD)Nos.7415 and 7416\n                             \tof 2005\n\n^Mr.S.Arunachalam    \t...\tfor 2nd respondents in\n                             \tW.P.(MD)No.515 and 516 of \t\t\t\t\n\t \t\t\t2004 and for petitioners in\n                             \tW.P.(MD)No.7415 and 7416\n                             \tof 2005\n\n:ORDER\t\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tWrit Petition (MD) No.515 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner<br \/>\nmanagement (hereinafater referred to as &#8220;the management&#8221;) against the Award of<br \/>\nthe first respondent\/Labour Court made in I.D.Nos.25\/2007 dated 22.3.2004 by<br \/>\nwhich the second respondent\/ P.Balasubramani(hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the<br \/>\nworkman&#8221;) was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and other<br \/>\nattendant benefits but without back wages.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. W.P.(MD)No.7415 of 2005 has been filed by the workman P.Balasubramani<br \/>\nagainst the very same Award in denying back wages to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. W.P.(MD)No.516 of 004 has been filed by the writ petitioner Management<br \/>\nagainst the Award dated 22.3.2004 of the 1st respondent Labour Court in<br \/>\nI.D.No.26\/1997 in granting relief to one P.Muniyappan (hereinafter referred to<br \/>\nas &#8220;the workman&#8221;) insofar as the grant of relief of continuity of service and<br \/>\nother attendant benefits but without backwages.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. In W.P.(MD)No.7416 of 2005, the said workman P.Muniyappan challenges<br \/>\nthe very same Award in I.D.No.26\/1997 insofar as denial of backwages to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. In view of the interconnectivity between the two Industrial Disputes as<br \/>\nwell as the Writ Petitions, all the Writ Petitions are taken up together for<br \/>\ndisposal and a common order is being passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Heard the arguments of Mr. T.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nManagement and Mr. S.Arunachalam, learned counsel for the workmen and have<br \/>\nperused the records.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. It is seen from the records that before filing of the Writ Petitions,<br \/>\nthe management offered employment to the workmen by letters dated 2.7.2004 but<br \/>\nit was in a Windmill owned by the management in Kethanur in Coimbatore District<br \/>\nand in case of workman P.Muniyappan,  it was also in a Windmill at Nagercoil.<br \/>\nThe workmen refused to accept the same because there is no question of going to<br \/>\nwork at a place where they were not previously employed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Subsequently, by an order dated 9.3.2005 in W.P.M.P.(MD)Nos.969 and 970<br \/>\nof 2005 in W.P.No.515 and 516 of 2004, this Court ordered payment under Section<br \/>\n17-B of the I.D.Act to be paid to the workmen.  As against the said order the<br \/>\nmanagement filed W.A.(MD)Nos.202 and 203 of 2005 wherein a Division Bench  of<br \/>\nthis Court directed the management to provide work to the workmen in a similar<br \/>\ncotton industry.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Since the Writ Petitions are being heard on merits, this Court is not<br \/>\ninclining to go into the allegations as to whether the workmen were genuinely<br \/>\noffered employment or the workmen were not inclined to accept the offer and that<br \/>\nthat is relegated to a future dispute between the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. A preliminary Award was passed by the first respondent\/Labour Court on<br \/>\n21.10.2003 by holding that the enquiry conducted against the second respondent<br \/>\nworkmen have been held properly and there is no infirmity in the procedure<br \/>\nadopted by the petitioner.  Even though in W.P.(MD)No.7415 and 7416 of 2005, the<br \/>\npreliminary Awards were under challenge, Mr. S.Arunachalam, learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe workmen did not seriously press his claim in attacking the preliminary Award<br \/>\nand he concentrated more on sustaining the merits of the two Awards.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. In terms of the relief granted to the workmen, it is seen from both<br \/>\nthe cases that the workmen were charge sheeted by an order dated 3.8.1996 and<br \/>\nthey were marked as Ex.M.2 by the Labour Court.  The graveman of the charge<br \/>\nagainst the two workmen were that they prevented co-workers from attending to<br \/>\ntheir work and they threatened them that should they defy bombs would be thrown<br \/>\nat them.  But, this relates to an incident dated 22.7.1996 and it is not<br \/>\nexplained as to why the management took 12 days for framing the charge sheet<br \/>\nconsidering the gravity of the charge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.  However, the learned counsel for the workmen brought to the notice of<br \/>\nthis Court that in a reply dated 3.8.2006 sent to the workmen&#8217;s notice, there<br \/>\nwas no whisper that the workmen have indulged in grave misconducts as alleged in<br \/>\nthe charge-memo dated 3.8.1996.  The first respondent Labour Court on an<br \/>\nanalysis of the evidence came to the conclusion in I.D.Nos.25\/1997 and 26\/1997<br \/>\ndated 22.3.2004 that charges levelled against the workmen were proved.  But,<br \/>\nhowever, that immediately after the incident that took place on 22.6.1996, the<br \/>\nworkmen were not placed under suspension.  Even the management witness, M.W.2<br \/>\ndid not mention any thing about the threat of throwing bombs if the workers had<br \/>\nattended to their duty.  It was also held that the delay in framing charge sheet<br \/>\nthrows suspicion.  If the workmen had used some abusive words that cannot be<br \/>\ntaken as threatening words and it is not such a serious<\/p>\n<p>allegation so as to inflict the punishment of dismissals.  It also categorically<br \/>\nfound that the management had exaggerated an ordinary incident and  magnified it<br \/>\nto appear as a serious misconduct.  It also held that the withholding of back<br \/>\nwages can be a sufficient punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. However, the first respondent Labour Court did not apply the correct<br \/>\nposition of law.  In para 10 of the Award, after referring to the decisions of<br \/>\nthe Calcutta High Court, it held that the Court cannot    re-appraise the<br \/>\nevidence as if it is a original Court or an Appellate Court and the jurisdiction<br \/>\nis that of a revisional jurisdiction.  After holding that the enquiry is proper<br \/>\nand the findings are not perverse and the evidence let in during the course of<br \/>\ndomestic enquiry cannot be reappreciated.  It also went to the extent of stating<br \/>\nthat the management allowing another co-worker by name Gopal, a similarly charge<br \/>\nsheeted workman, cannot be taken advantage by these two workmen.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. All the three findings of the Labour Court are completely at variance<br \/>\nwith the decision rendered by the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 11-A<br \/>\nof the I.D.Act.  In fact, the Labour Court in deciding the preliminary issue is<br \/>\nonly entitled to go into the fairness of the enquiry and mostly procedural<br \/>\naspect of the enquiry.  Once it is held that the enquiry is fair and proper,<br \/>\nthen the Labour Court had to act like an appellate Court and it has been given<br \/>\nthe power to re-appreciate the evidence already recorded and come to a different<br \/>\nconclusion [see  Firestones&#8217; [1973(1) LLJ 278].  In the same way, the finding<br \/>\nthat another workman similarly charge sheeted cannot be a relevant factor in<br \/>\nconsidering the discrimination meted out by the management while charge sheeting<br \/>\nthe workmen.  However, going into the details of these issues for the present<br \/>\nare not relevant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. This Court is of the opinion that the Award of the Labour Court does<br \/>\nnot suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The Labour Court has correctly come<br \/>\nto the<\/p>\n<p>conclusion that the charge against the workmen were exaggerated and the<br \/>\nmanagement was at fault by not framing a charge sheet as the earliest point of<br \/>\ntime and for the charge relating to threatening with throwing of bombs was not<br \/>\nmade proved even as per the oral evidence of MW.2.  But insofar as the charge<br \/>\nthat the workmen prevented the co-workers from going to work, the finding of the<br \/>\nLabour Court is that the charge was found proved but it warrants only a lesser<br \/>\npunishment.  The Labour Court depriving the back wages is a sufficient<br \/>\npunishment for the proven charges.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in rejecting the arguments of<br \/>\nboth the learned counsel for the management and the workmen.  All the Writ<br \/>\nPetitions deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed.  No costs. Interim<br \/>\nstay already granted is vacated and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are<br \/>\nclosed.  The writ petitioner\/management is hereby directed to reinstate the<br \/>\nworkmen in the same place and the posts in which<\/p>\n<p>they were working at the time of their dismissal and also pay wages from the<br \/>\ndate of Award till the reinstatement after giving due credit to the payments if<br \/>\nany made under Section 17-B of the I.D.Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>asvm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>  The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\n  Labour Court,<br \/>\n  District Court Complex,<br \/>\n  Tiruchirappalli.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 August, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17\/08\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU WRIT PETITION (MD) No.515 of 2004, WRIT PETITION (MD) Nos.516 of 2004, 7415 and 7416 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.(MD)Nos.486 and 487 of 2007 W.P.(MD)Nos.515 and [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-227810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-21T20:52:25+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-21T20:52:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1336,\"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\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007\",\"name\":\"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-21T20:52:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 August, 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":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-21T20:52:25+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-21T20:52:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007"},"wordCount":1336,"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\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007","name":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-21T20:52:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 August, 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\/227810","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=227810"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227810\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}