{"id":229043,"date":"2010-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010"},"modified":"2019-01-25T13:37:51","modified_gmt":"2019-01-25T08:07:51","slug":"v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"V.M.Sheela vs Kamco Employees Union on 9 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
V.M.Sheela vs Kamco Employees Union on 9 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 201 of 2007()\n\n\n1. V.M.SHEELA,W\/O.K.K.BALAKRISHNAN,KULIRMA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KAMCO EMPLOYEES UNION, ATHANI, REGD.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.K.VEERAVUNNY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :09\/04\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                                                  C.R.\n                 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &\n             K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.\n           -------------------------------------------\n                 RCR No.201 of 2007\n           -------------------------------------------\n        Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010\n\n                          ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Surendra Mohan,J.\n<\/p>\n
       This is a tenant’s revision filed challenging<\/p>\n
concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court, Aluva and the Rent Control Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority, North Paravur. The respondent-landlord is<\/p>\n
the KAMCO Employees Union, represented by its<\/p>\n
General Secretary.      The Rent Control Court ordered<\/p>\n
eviction under Section 11(3) 11(7) and 11(8) of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.<\/p>\n
On appeal, the Appellate Authority rejected the ground<\/p>\n
under Section 11(3) and confined the order of eviction<\/p>\n
to the grounds under Section 11(8) and 11(7) of the<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The respondent-landlord filed RCP No.15 of<\/p>\n
2004 of the Rent Control Court, Aluva seeking an order<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007         2<\/span><\/p>\n
  of eviction against the tenant under Section 11(3), 11<\/p>\n
  (7) and 11(8) of the Act. According to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
  the tenanted premises having an area of 750 sq.ft.<\/p>\n
  was initially let out to the husband of the revision<\/p>\n
  petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.2,300\/- for the<\/p>\n
  purpose of conducting hotel business. However, the<\/p>\n
  husband of the revision petitioner could not conduct<\/p>\n
  the business in his name for the reason that he was an<\/p>\n
  employee of the ‘TELK’. Therefore, on his request a<\/p>\n
  renewed agreement was executed by the landlord in<\/p>\n
  favour of the revision petitioner. On the north of the<\/p>\n
  petition schedule premises, there is another room<\/p>\n
  from which the office of the respondent-landlord is<\/p>\n
  functioning at present. It is the case of the landlord<\/p>\n
  that the space now available is not sufficient for its<\/p>\n
  activities. According to the landlord, for conducting its<\/p>\n
  annual      general body  meeting,    the   space   was<\/p>\n
  absolutely insufficient.  Therefore, it was contended<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007          3<\/span><\/p>\n
  that the space occupied by the revision petitioner was<\/p>\n
  also required for the purpose of organizing its<\/p>\n
  activities and for conducting its general body meeting.<\/p>\n
         3. The need put forward by the landlord was<\/p>\n
  resisted by the tenant. According to her, the petition<\/p>\n
  schedule premises was constructed by her utilizing her<\/p>\n
  own funds on the land owned by the Union after<\/p>\n
  seeking its permission.    According to her, she had<\/p>\n
  spent an amount of Rs.4,15,000\/- for the construction<\/p>\n
  of the petition    schedule room.    However, she had<\/p>\n
  been made to sign and hand over to the Union, blank<\/p>\n
  stamp papers at the time of commencement of the<\/p>\n
  tenancy. The allegation is that Union had fabricated a<\/p>\n
  rent deed on such signed blank stamp papers.<\/p>\n
         4. The tenant further contended that the office<\/p>\n
  space presently available was more than sufficient for<\/p>\n
  organizing the activities of the Union.     The annual<\/p>\n
  general body meeting is convened only once a year.<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007          4<\/span><\/p>\n
  On other days, the Union is letting out the available<\/p>\n
  space on daily rent. Therefore, the tenant contended<\/p>\n
  that the need alleged was only a ruse for eviction.<\/p>\n
         5. The Rent Control Court tried the petition on the<\/p>\n
  above pleadings. The landlord examined PWs.1 to 3<\/p>\n
  witnesses while the tenant examined herself and her<\/p>\n
  husband as RWs.1 and 2. On the side of the landlord,<\/p>\n
  Exts.A1 to A23 (series) documents were marked.<\/p>\n
  Ext.C1 Commission Report was marked as Court<\/p>\n
  Exhibit.\n<\/p>\n
         6. After an elaborate consideration of the<\/p>\n
  contentions of the parties and the evidence on record,<\/p>\n
  the court below granted an order of eviction on the<\/p>\n
  three grounds put forward in the Rent Control Petition.<\/p>\n
  The order of the Rent Control Court was challenged by<\/p>\n
  the tenant in RCA No.29 of 2005 before the Rent<\/p>\n
  Control Appellate Authority, North Paravur.           The<\/p>\n
  Appellate Authority, on a reappraisal of the pleadings<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007            5<\/span><\/p>\n
  and the evidence on record found that the order of<\/p>\n
  eviction under Section 11(3) was unjustified and<\/p>\n
  therefore set aside the same. However, the order of<\/p>\n
  eviction under Section 11(7) and 11(8) were sustained.<\/p>\n
  The aggrieved tenant is the revision petitioner.<\/p>\n
         7. We have heard Adv.P.B.Krishnan, the counsel<\/p>\n
  for the revision petitioner and Sri.V.K.Veeravunni, the<\/p>\n
  counsel for the respondent-landlord. We have been<\/p>\n
  taken through the pleadings and the evidence in the<\/p>\n
  case.       We have anxiously considered the rival<\/p>\n
  contentions of the parties and the evidence in the<\/p>\n
  case.\n<\/p>\n
         8. The point that arises for consideration is :-<\/p>\n
            “Whether    the   composite     order   of
\n            eviction granted under Section 11(7)
\n            and 11(8) of the Act is sustainable?”\n<\/p>\n
         9. Though the tenant has a contention that the<\/p>\n
   petition schedule premises were actually constructed<\/p>\n
   by her spending an amount of Rs.4,15,000\/-, there is<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007          6<\/span><\/p>\n
   no reliable evidence available in support of the above<\/p>\n
   contention. The said contention has also not been<\/p>\n
   canvassed with any vigour before us by the counsel.<\/p>\n
   We do not find any grounds to upset the findings of<\/p>\n
   the authorities below in this regard.<\/p>\n
         10. According to the counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
   petitioner, the Commission Report Ext.C1 shows that<\/p>\n
   the present room occupied by the Union has an area<\/p>\n
   of 404 sq.ft.   According to the counsel, the Union<\/p>\n
   Office has an area of 275 sq.ft. and the verandha<\/p>\n
   portion had an area of 128 sq.ft., and therefore, the<\/p>\n
   space was sufficient to accommodate at least 40<\/p>\n
   people.     The Commissioner has reported that the<\/p>\n
   space was not sufficient to accommodate all the<\/p>\n
   members. It is pointed out that the Union has only 54<\/p>\n
   members and even if all the members were present to<\/p>\n
   attend a general body meeting, the others could be<\/p>\n
   easily accommodated on the covered veranda that<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007            7<\/span><\/p>\n
   forms part of the office room.    Relying on Ext.A22<\/p>\n
   Minutes Book of the Union, it is pointed out by the<\/p>\n
   counsel that the two general body meetings, prior to<\/p>\n
   the rent control proceedings were attended only by 29<\/p>\n
   and 32 members respectively. Therefore, it is pointed<\/p>\n
   out that the space available was more than sufficient<\/p>\n
   to satisfy the need of conducting general body<\/p>\n
   meetings of the Union.\n<\/p>\n
         11. It is clear from the above contentions that<\/p>\n
   the attempt of the tenant is to show to this Court that<\/p>\n
   the covered veranda that forms part of the building<\/p>\n
   could be utilized by the landlord for accommodating<\/p>\n
   the members of       the Union while conducting the<\/p>\n
   general body meeting. It is trite that, it is not for the<\/p>\n
   tenant to dictate to the landlord how to satisfy his<\/p>\n
   need. When the landlord has a sufficiently spacious<\/p>\n
   room owned by it, there is nothing wrong in the<\/p>\n
   landlord wanting possession of the said room for its<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007            8<\/span><\/p>\n
   need. The need cannot be rejected on the ground<\/p>\n
   that the landlord would be able to satisfy its need by<\/p>\n
   utilizing the veranda. Therefore, the said contention<\/p>\n
   of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. The<\/p>\n
   courts below were right in finding that the need of the<\/p>\n
   landlord was genuine and bonafide. There is nothing<\/p>\n
   wrong in the landlord wanting possession of a more<\/p>\n
   spacious room for the purpose of conducting its Union<\/p>\n
   activities including its general body meeting.<\/p>\n
         12. It is the admitted case of the revision<\/p>\n
   petitioner that the respondent\/landlord is a Union<\/p>\n
   registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926.<\/p>\n
   The respondent has produced a certified copy of its<\/p>\n
   bye laws, which is Ext.A7.      The annual returns has<\/p>\n
   been produced and marked as Ext.A8(b). The<\/p>\n
   accounts maintained by the Union are Exts.A20 and<\/p>\n
   A21. The Minutes Book of the Union from 5.4.2002<\/p>\n
   has been marked as Ext.A22. The above documents<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007              9<\/span><\/p>\n
   clearly prove that the landlord Union has been<\/p>\n
   functioning as a trade union.\n<\/p>\n
             13. The question whether a trade union is a<\/p>\n
   public institution under Section 11(7) of the Act has<\/p>\n
   been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n
   Haridas v Merchantile employees Association<\/p>\n
   (1975 KLT 437). After going through the constitution<\/p>\n
   of the trade union, this Court found that, trade union<\/p>\n
   was a public institution under Section 11(7) of the Act.<\/p>\n
   In conclusion, this has Court observed as follows:<\/p>\n
            “It is clear, that judged by the objects for
\n            which the Association stands and the
\n            nature of its membership which consists
\n            of various classes of industrial workers
\n            and commercial employees who certainly
\n            constitute a substantial section of the
\n            public, the Association cannot be said to
\n            be a private body and must be held to be
\n            a public institution.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         14. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that<\/p>\n
   the respondent union is a public institution for the<\/p>\n
   purpose of section 11(7) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007          10<\/span><\/p>\n
         15. It has been contended by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
   revision petitioner that the Appellate Authority erred<\/p>\n
   in clubbing together the grounds under Section 11(7)<\/p>\n
   and 11(8) of the Act. In fact, in the present case,<\/p>\n
   eviction was sought on the combined grounds under<\/p>\n
   Section 11(3), 11(7) and 11(8).     Eviction was also<\/p>\n
   ordered by the Rent Control Court initially on all the<\/p>\n
   three grounds. The Appellate Authority however set<\/p>\n
   aside the grounds under Section 11(3) of the Act and<\/p>\n
   confined the order of eviction to Sec.11(7) and 11(8)<\/p>\n
   of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
         16. It has been held by this Court in various<\/p>\n
   decisions that the grounds under Section 11(3) and 11<\/p>\n
   (8) are mutually exclusive and a combined order of<\/p>\n
   eviction cannot be passed under both the above<\/p>\n
   grounds. As rightly noted by the Appellate Authority,<\/p>\n
   one of the important differences between the two<\/p>\n
   grounds is the absence of the protection given to the<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007           11<\/span><\/p>\n
   tenant by the proviso to Section 11(3). In fact there<\/p>\n
   are two provisos to Section 11(3), the first one<\/p>\n
   disentitling the landlord from obtaining an order of<\/p>\n
   eviction where he is in possession of another premises<\/p>\n
   of his own. In such cases, in the absence of specific<\/p>\n
   reasons, no eviction could be granted in favour of the<\/p>\n
   landlord. The second proviso clothes the tenant with<\/p>\n
   an immunity from eviction on his establishing that he<\/p>\n
   was dependent on the business carried on by him in<\/p>\n
   the premises for his livelihood and that there were no<\/p>\n
   other rooms available in the locality for shifting his<\/p>\n
   business. The rigor of the requirements of Section 11<\/p>\n
   (3) is considerably reduced in the case of         the<\/p>\n
   protection under Section 11(8).       The concept of<\/p>\n
   comparative hardship is introduced by Section 11(10)<\/p>\n
   of the Act.   However, the question of bonafides is<\/p>\n
   certainly relevant not only in Section 11(3) and<\/p>\n
   Section 11(8) but also in Section 11(7). The content<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007           12<\/span><\/p>\n
   of the requirement of      bonafides in each of the<\/p>\n
   sections is different.\n<\/p>\n
         17. As far as the requirement of Section 11(7) is<\/p>\n
   concerned, what is important is to consider whether<\/p>\n
   the     need put forward is genuine or not.      In the<\/p>\n
   present case, it has been established by Ext.C1 and<\/p>\n
   the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 that the respondent is<\/p>\n
   actually in need of more spacious premises, which is<\/p>\n
   available in the occupation of the revision petitioner.<\/p>\n
   There is nothing on record to show that the need is<\/p>\n
   put forward as a ruse for evicting the revision<\/p>\n
   petitioner.     Since the respondent is a public<\/p>\n
   institution, the ground under Section 11(7) is available<\/p>\n
   to it. Therefore, the authorities below were right in<\/p>\n
   finding that the respondent has made out a need<\/p>\n
   under section 11(7) of the Act. We do not find any<\/p>\n
   ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the<\/p>\n
   authorities below.\n<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007           13<\/span><\/p>\n
         18. The ground under Section 11(8) has also<\/p>\n
   been found by the authorities below. It has already<\/p>\n
   been found by us that the space available to the<\/p>\n
   respondent is not sufficient for holding the meetings<\/p>\n
   of the Union in a comfortable manner. The above fact<\/p>\n
   is evident from Ext.C1 report of the Commissioner<\/p>\n
   also. The relevant consideration in an action under<\/p>\n
   Section 11(8) should be of the comparative hardship<\/p>\n
   of the landlord and the tenant. The tenant is the wife<\/p>\n
   of an employee of the TELK, where her husband is<\/p>\n
   already employed. Therefore, the hardship that would<\/p>\n
   be caused to the revision petitioner\/tenant would be<\/p>\n
   less in comparison to the hardship that would be<\/p>\n
   caused to the landlord.\n<\/p>\n
         19. In view of the above, the authorities below<\/p>\n
   were right in finding that the revision petitioner\/tenant<\/p>\n
   was liable to be evicted under Section 11(8) of the act<\/p>\n
   also.\n<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007            14<\/span><\/p>\n
         20. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any<\/p>\n
   grounds to interfere with the findings of the Appellate<\/p>\n
   Authority. As a last submission, the counsel for the<\/p>\n
   revision petitioner prayed for the grant of one year’s<\/p>\n
   time to vacate the premises. We do not think that the<\/p>\n
   grant of such a long period of time to the tenant to<\/p>\n
   vacate the premises is justified.     However, we feel<\/p>\n
   that a reasonable time can be granted.<\/p>\n
         21. In the result, the Rent Control Petition is<\/p>\n
   disposed of with the following directions:-<\/p>\n
              i) The order of eviction granted against the<\/p>\n
  tenant is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
        ii) The tenant is granted time up to 30.4.2010 to<\/p>\n
  surrender      vacant  possession    of   the  tenanted<\/p>\n
  premises to the respondent\/landlord. The grant of<\/p>\n
  time as aforesaid is subject to the further condition<\/p>\n
  that the revision petitioner\/tenant shall file an<\/p>\n
  affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the<\/p>\n
  Execution Court as the case may be, within a period<\/p>\n
  of two weeks from today, undertaking to vacate the<\/p>\n
  tenanted premises on or before 30.4.2010.<\/p>\n
RCR No.201\/2007            15<\/span><\/p>\n
        iii) The revision petitioner\/tenant shall pay all<\/p>\n
  arrears of rent in respect of the premises remaining<\/p>\n
  unpaid till date and shall continue to pay the rent in<\/p>\n
  respect of the tenanted premises until vacant<\/p>\n
  possession thereof is surrendered to the respondent-<\/p>\n
  landlord.\n<\/p>\n
        iv) In the event of the tenant committing default<\/p>\n
  of any of the above conditions, the landlord shall be<\/p>\n
  at liberty to execute the order of eviction passed<\/p>\n
  against the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
               In the circumstances, there will be no order<\/p>\n
  as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,
\n                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
\n                                      JUDGE
\n  css\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court V.M.Sheela vs Kamco Employees Union on 9 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 201 of 2007() 1. V.M.SHEELA,W\/O.K.K.BALAKRISHNAN,KULIRMA, … Petitioner Vs 1. KAMCO EMPLOYEES UNION, ATHANI, REGD. … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.V.K.VEERAVUNNY The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-229043","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.M.Sheela vs Kamco Employees Union on 9 April, 2010 - 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\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.M.Sheela vs Kamco Employees Union on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-25T08:07:51+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.M.Sheela vs Kamco Employees Union on 9 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-25T08:07:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2220,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010\",\"name\":\"V.M.Sheela vs Kamco Employees Union on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-25T08:07:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.M.Sheela vs Kamco Employees Union on 9 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"V.M.Sheela vs Kamco Employees Union on 9 April, 2010 - 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\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.M.Sheela vs Kamco Employees Union on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-25T08:07:51+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.M.Sheela vs Kamco Employees Union on 9 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-25T08:07:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010"},"wordCount":2220,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010","name":"V.M.Sheela vs Kamco Employees Union on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-25T08:07:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-sheela-vs-kamco-employees-union-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.M.Sheela vs Kamco Employees Union on 9 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/229043","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=229043"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229043\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}