{"id":228132,"date":"2011-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011"},"modified":"2017-05-25T07:11:05","modified_gmt":"2017-05-25T01:41:05","slug":"deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Deputy General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Deputy General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 21\/10\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.10113 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009\n\nDeputy General Manager,\nSterlings Spinners Limited,\nRep. by its Deputy General Manager,\nS.Chandrasekar\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Presiding Officer,\n   Labour Court,\n   Trichy (Dindigul Camp).\n\n2.P.Jaiganesh\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for\nthe records relating to I.A.No.119 of 2007 in I.D.No.126 of 2003 dated\n25.04.2009 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and\nconsequently, direct the first respondent to set aside the preliminary issue\naccording to law raised by the petitioner.\n\n!For Petitioner\t  \t... Mr.D.Saravanan\n^For Respondent No.1\t... Court\nFor Respondent No.2\t... M\/S.D.Geetha\t\t\n\t\t\t\t               ******\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>*******<br \/>\n\t\tThe petitioner is the Management of Sterlings Spinners Limited at<br \/>\nP.Pudupatti, represented by its Deputy General Manager. In this Writ Petition,<br \/>\nthe challenge is made to a common order passed by the first respondent Labour<br \/>\nCourt, Trichy, at its Dindigul Camp, dated  25.04.2009 made in various I.Ds,<br \/>\nstarting from I.D.Nos.184 of 2004 and ending with I.D.No.121 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.\tWhen the Writ Petition came up for admission on 18.11.2009,<br \/>\nnotice of motion was ordered. I.A.No.119 of 2007 in I.D.No.126 of 2003, raised<br \/>\nby the petitioner and the said I.A. was tried along with several I.As. in<br \/>\nvarious I.Ds., relating to the same petitioner Management and a common order was<br \/>\npassed on 25.04.2009. By the impugned order, the Labour Court held that it is<br \/>\nunnecessary to try any preliminary issue separately and all issues can be<br \/>\ncomprehensively tried by the Labour Court at the disposal of the main I.Ds.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.\tIt is seen from the records that the workmen employed in the<br \/>\npetitioner Mill raised industrial disputes under Section 2(A)(2) of the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act,1947, including the second respondent. The grievance<br \/>\nprojected by the workmen was that a general dispute under Section 2(k) was<br \/>\npending conciliation before the Conciliation Officer and at that time, charges<br \/>\nwere framed against the workmen and despite request for postponing  the enquiry,<br \/>\nan        ex parte enquiry was conducted and they were all dismissed from<br \/>\nservice. On the strength of the failure report given by the Conciliation<br \/>\nOfficer, claim statements were filed before the Labour Court and the Labour<br \/>\nCourt registered the case of the second respondent as I.D.No.126 of 2003 and<br \/>\nnotice was ordered to the Management.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. The Management instead of filing a counter statement, filed an<br \/>\napplication stating that the disputes raised by the workmen were not<br \/>\nmaintainable. In the interim applications, counter statements were filed by the<br \/>\nworkmen contending that their dismissals were unjustified. Since similar interim<br \/>\napplications were filed (as many as 39 applications), they were consolidated and<br \/>\na common enquiry was conducted. After hearing both sides, the Labour Court held<br \/>\nthat it was unnecessary to try any issue as a preliminary issue and all issues<br \/>\ncan be comprehensively dealt with at the time of the disposal of the main I.Ds.<br \/>\nIn this context, the Labour Court also referred to the judgments of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt reported in 1983 (2) LLJ 425, D.P.Maheswari Vs. Delhi Administration and<br \/>\nothers ,  in 1983 (2) LLJ 429, S.K.Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra and another (SC)<br \/>\nand in 1996(2) LLJ 125, National Council for Cement and Building Materials Vs.<br \/>\nState of Haryana and others (SC). In the last judgment, the Supreme Court had<br \/>\nobserved that the Court cannot shut its eyes to the appalling situation created<br \/>\nby such preliminary issues, which takes long years to settle the issue as the<br \/>\ndecision of the Labour Tribunal on the preliminary issue is immediately<br \/>\nchallenged in one or other forum including the High Court and proceedings in the<br \/>\nreference are stayed which continue to lie dormant,  till the  matter  relating<br \/>\nto the preliminary issue, is finally disposed of.  It is in these circumstances,<br \/>\nthe Labour Court refused to accept the plea of the Management for trying<br \/>\nparticular issue as the preliminary issue.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. This Court does not find that any case made out for interfering<br \/>\nwith the impugned order. As already referred to the judgments cited supra,<br \/>\npointed out by the Court below, there is no obligation for the Court to frame<br \/>\nand try a particular issue as a preliminary issue. When the Labour Court had<br \/>\nclearly expressed itself that it would try all issues including the issue raised<br \/>\nby the Management, the matter should have ended therein. It is not open to the<br \/>\nManagement to file such a Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. Further, when the impugned order is a common order, dated<br \/>\n25.04.2009, there is no question of choosing to challenge in respect of one<br \/>\ninterim application by the Management. Since the finding rendered by the Labour<br \/>\nCourt in respect of other interim applications filed by the Management, is final<br \/>\nand will operate as res judicata against the Management, the present attempt by<br \/>\nthe Management in challenging in relation to one application from a common order<br \/>\nis also not permissible.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. In this context, the Supreme Court while dealing with the filing<br \/>\nof appeals from a common order and in which orders were passed, but were not<br \/>\nappealed against, held that would operate as res judicata vide its Judgment in<br \/>\nK.H.Siraj v High Court of Kerala reported in 2006 (6) SCC 395 and in Paragraph<br \/>\nNo.76, it was observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t76. One more factor has also to be noticed in regard to the civil appeals<br \/>\nfiled by Mr K.H. Siraj which, in our opinion, is also hit by res judicata. His<br \/>\nwrit petition in the High Court was OP No. 5219 of 2002. That was partly allowed<br \/>\nwithout giving him any relief for a direction for appointment. On the other<br \/>\nhand, the High Court set aside the selection of candidates occupying Ranks Nos.<br \/>\n60, 62, 64, 66, 68, and 70. The High Court filed Writ Appeal No. 1496 of 2004<br \/>\nbefore the Division Bench. Mr K.H. Siraj himself filed WA No. 1584 of 2004<br \/>\nagainst that part of the impugned judgment which was against him. Candidates<br \/>\noccupying Rank No. 60, etc. who are affected by the judgment had themselves<br \/>\nfiled WAs Nos. 1498, 1510, 1526, 1527, 1541, 1588 and 1574 of 2004. All these<br \/>\nappeals filed by the High Court and by these parties were allowed setting aside<br \/>\nthe judgment of the learned Single Judge. Mr K.H. Siraj&#8217;s appeal (WA No. 1584 of<br \/>\n2004) was dismissed. However, Mr Siraj has chosen to file appeals only against<br \/>\nthe decision in WA No. 1496 of 2004 filed by the High Court and WA No. 1584 of<br \/>\n2004 filed by himself and has not chosen to file any appeal against the decision<br \/>\nin the other appeals, WA No. 1498 of 2004, etc. filed by the affected parties.<br \/>\nThe decision therein has become final and, therefore, operates as res judicata<br \/>\nand Mr K.H. Siraj&#8217;s appeal is to be dismissed as such.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTherefore, the Writ Petition is misconceived and dismissed with costs of<br \/>\nRs.2,000\/- (Rupees two thousand only) payable to the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nsecond respondent. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.<br \/>\nNo costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>SML<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nLabour Court,<br \/>\nTrichy (Dindigul Camp).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Deputy General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21\/10\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.10113 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 Deputy General Manager, Sterlings Spinners Limited, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, S.Chandrasekar &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1.The Presiding Officer, [&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-228132","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Deputy General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2011 - 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\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deputy General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-25T01:41:05+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Deputy General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-25T01:41:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1056,\"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\\\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Deputy General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-25T01:41:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deputy General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Deputy General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2011 - 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\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deputy General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-25T01:41:05+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Deputy General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-25T01:41:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011"},"wordCount":1056,"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\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011","name":"Deputy General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-25T01:41:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-21-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deputy General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 21 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228132","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=228132"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228132\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}