{"id":231056,"date":"2008-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008"},"modified":"2018-07-24T23:49:00","modified_gmt":"2018-07-24T18:19:00","slug":"bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bokaro Steel Employees Co- Ope vs The State Of Jhakrhand &amp; Ors on 25 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bokaro Steel Employees Co- Ope vs The State Of Jhakrhand &amp; Ors on 25 October, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                       W.P.(C) No.1543 of 2008\n\n        Bokaro Steel Employees Co-operative House Construction Society Limited,\n        B.S.City...............................................................Petitioner\n                            Vrs.\n        The State of Jharkhand &amp; Others...............................Respondents\n\nPRESENT :       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA\n\n        For the petitioner   :    Mr. A.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate\n                                  Mr.Krishna Murari,Advocate\n      For the respondents :       M.K.Roy, Advocte\n                   ----------------\nC.A.V. on 15.10.2008                  Pronounced on : 25.10.2008\n                   ---------------\n1.           The present writ petition has been preferred for the following\nreliefs:-\nA.             For direction upon the respondents to forthwith release\/pay the up\nto date maturity value as against the investments made in fixed deposit scheme\nat Bokaro Steel Centre Branch vide FDR Certificates No.2871 dated 21.12.95,\n2876 dated 30.12.95, 6816 dated 12.5.98 and 6817 dated 8.6.98 with initial\nvalue of Rs.3396591\/-, Rs.414375\/-. Rs.1803840\/- and Rs.966992\/- respectively,\nwhich was refused to be renewed after 21.3.04 and accordingly to renew the\nsame with retrospective effect till the date of liquidation and pay the entire\namounts which comes about Rs.2,21,29,374\/-(Two Crores Twenty One Lakhs\nTwenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Four only) as more fully\ndescribed in table chart duly annexed at Annexure-6.\nB.             Further for direction upon the respondents to also activate the SB\nA\/c No.1 and SB A\/c No.2 (appertaining to the Provident Fund of the employees)\nof the society and accordingly to allow its operation and withdrawal of amount\nwith admissible interest there from; in which the standing balance was\nRs.200234.75\/- and Rs.462659.39\/- as on 31.3.2001, since the operation of the\nsaid accounts were stopped on non-est       and frivolous ground of stay by the\nD.C.O., Dhanbad and Officer In-charge\/Investigating Officer in connection with\nB.S. City P.S. Case No.329\/96, in which after investigation, the final form has\nalready been submitted on 09.01.1998 and therefore accordingly to direct the\nrespondents concerned to pay the entire amount with up-to-date interest totaling\nto Rs.8,43,382.43\/- (Eight Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty\nTwo &amp; Paisa Forty      Three only), as more fully described in table chart duly\nannexed as Annexure-6.\nC.             Further for direction upon the respondents to show cause as to\nwhy suitable cost &amp; compensation in addition to the relief(s) sought for be not\nawarded for causing undue prejudice &amp; hardship to the society by not paying the\ncomplete up-to-date dues amount of Rs.2,29,72,756.43\/-(Two crores Twenty\n                                          2\n\n\nNine Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Six &amp; Paisa Forty Three\nonly) as per Annexure-6.\n2.            The facts, in brief, is summarized as under:-\n              The petitioner is a registered Cooperative Housing Society bearing\nregistration No.47\/1968 and is engaged in providing housing accommodation and\nmaintenance thereof to its members who are the employees of the Bokaro Steel\nPlant, Bokaro. It appears that in the year 1973 on the request of the petitioner\nthe company in question agreed to allocate 210 acres more land in addition and\nadjoining to the previously allocated 19 acres of lands to accommodate rest of\nthe 173 members.      However, land was never leased out        and transferred in\nfavour of the society due to one reason or the other. The management of the\npetitioner society had collected the development charges from the 173 members\nfor an amount of Rs.31,550\/- each totaling to about Rs.65 lakhs approximately.\nHowever, due to non-allotment of land the aggrieved members filed a complaint\nbefore the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Officer, Chas, Bokaro who in turn\nlodged an F.I.R. being B.S. City Case No.329\/96 corresponding to G.R.\nNo.1240\/96for the aforesaid irregularities against the Office bearers of the\nsociety.   The petitioner submits that it had bonafidely      in order to keep the\nmoney safe and secure invested the same in fixed deposit scheme with the\nrespondent Central Cooperative Bank.\n                  In the meanwhile the Enquiry\/Investigation was completed and\nFinal Form was submitted by the I.O. on 9.1.98 with the conclusion that it is a\ncase of mistake of facts and no offence is made out. It was also recorded that\nthe amount collected from the members was neither mis-utilised nor embezzled\nand thus the stay order passed by the police got vacated\/expired automatically\non the conclusion of the investigation. According to the petitioner pursuant to\nthe investment made in the fixed deposit with respect to a F.D.R.No.2871 the\nsame matured on 21.3.1998 and it was renewed initially till 21.3.2001 and then\nup to 21st March, 2004      but thereafter neither the request for renewal was\naccepted nor the payment was released with its matured value.\n3.              In the aforesaid background the petitioner submits that when the\nland in question was not transferred to the society by the company, for onward\nallocation and handing over the same to the Members from whom the\ndevelopment charges were collected, they started pressing hard for the refund of\nthe same, but the society being financially crippled due to the aforesaid arbitrary,\nand illegal withholding of the matured amount by the respondent Bank and thus\nthe petitioner was unable to refund the same. Resultantly several cases were\nfiled in the District Consumer Forum by those members against society, which\nwould be evident from the letter No.775\/02 dated 27.6.2002 written by the then\nHon'ble Secretary of the society to the Officer Incharge, B.S.City Police Station\n                                         3\n\n\nbut again of no avail. The petitioner society approached the respondent bank\nand requested to release the amount so as to liquidate the same for onward\nrepayment to its members but the respondent paid no heed to the same.\n4.           It is also stated that a cheque of Rs.6000\/- in favour of one Vijay\nBahadur Singh was not even honoured by the bank. The petitioner thereafter\nalso served a legal notice through its counsel on 28.5.2007 to release the\nadmitted outstanding amount with interest but the bank is sitting tight over it.\nThe petitioner further submits that a series of orders have been issued by the\nDistrict Consumer Forum, Bokaro as well as State Consumer Forum, Ranchi in\nfavour of the one or other members for payment of their amount deposited but\ndue to the arbitrary attitude of the bank it could not be released. It has also\nbeen submitted that the amount invested in Allahabad Bank has been released in\nfavour of the society without any obstacle and it is in this background that the\npresent writ petition has been filed with the prayer as indicated in Paragraph-1.\n5.           The main grounds raised by the learned Senior counsel Sri Anil\nKumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioner is that the bank has no legal or\njustifiable ground to withhold the admitted amount deposited by the society in\nthe bank and the entire action of the bank is arbitrary, malafide and capricious\nand thus illegal. It has also been submitted that the action of the bank is dehors\nthe agreement and the contract and the F.D. account matured has to be\nrefunded based on the matured value with interest.\n6.           The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the action of the\nrespondent bank constitute offence of cheating and defalcation and it is violative\nof Article 14, 19 &amp; 300-A of the Constitution of India.         It has also been\ncontended that the bank is only a licensee and is duty bound to refund the\nmatured value of the amount to the beneficiary and it has no authority to\nwithhold the amount so deposited\/invested. It has further been contended that\npursuant to orders being passed from time to time by the District Consumer\nForum as well as the State Consumer Forum warrants were issued against\nsociety and it is the bank which is creating hurdle in refunding the payment\nmade by the members who deposited their amount and are seeking refund of\nthe same but due to the arbitrary and malafide attitude of the bank the money\ncan't be refunded to the members of the society..\n7.           The counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has raised a\npreliminary submission with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. It\nis submitted that the administrator of the society who has sworn the affidavit\nwas appointed vide letter No.150 dated 14.11.07 for a period of three months\nand that the period has expired in February, 2008 and thus he was not\ncompetent after 14.2.2008 to institute the instant writ petition in March, 2008. It\nhas further been submitted on behalf of the respondent bank that a criminal case\n                                          4\n\n\nbearing B.S.City Case No.329\/96 was registered and during the pendency of\ncriminal case the Investigating Officer vide its letter dated 11.10.1996 requested\nthe answering respondent to suspend the operation of the bank account of the\nsociety.    It has further been submitted that audit team found several\ndiscrepancies in the bank which has led to filing of a criminal case registered vide\ncase No.57\/2001 and it is in these background that the Managing Company of\nthe Bank in its meeting held on 16.4.2002 resolved to suspend the account of\nthe petitioner society.\n8.            I have gone through the pleadings and heard the rival contentions\nraised by the counsel for the parties. The bank is only a licensee to keep the\nmoney deposited and further to refund the same on maturity without any\nobstacle.   The first contention raised by the petitioner with regard to the\npendency of a criminal case No.329\/96 and the order of the Investigating Officer\ndated 11.10.1996 to suspend the operation of the society is not only misleading\nbut erroneous for the sole reason that pursuant to the completion of\ninvestigation and enquiry a Final Form was submitted by the I.O. himself on\n9.1.98<\/pre>\n<p> concluding that it was a case of mistake of facts and no offence was<br \/>\nmade out as alleged since neither the amount was unauthorisedly collected from<br \/>\nthe members nor the same was mis-utilised or embezzled. It will thus be evident<br \/>\nthat the order of stay passed bythe police automatically stood vacated\/expired<br \/>\nwith the conclusion of investigation and submission of final form on 9.1.98.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.                The second contention with regard to the competence of the<br \/>\nadministrator since he was appointed only for a period of three months which<br \/>\nexpired on 14.2.2008 whereas the writ petition was filed in March, 2008 is also<br \/>\nunsustainable. The respondents have nowhere submitted as to whether the<br \/>\nappointment of the administrator was renewed or cancelled or someone else was<br \/>\nappointed but these are arguments which are solely based on technicalities<br \/>\nwhich cannot prevail over justice.     The fact remains that whosoever is the<br \/>\ncompetent authority of the society at the relevant point of time will be authorized<br \/>\nto issue the cheque in favour of the members of the society who in turn will have<br \/>\nto collect the cheque amount directly from the bank on presentation. A Specific<br \/>\nquery in this regard was raised to the counsel for the petitioner that the money<br \/>\nshould be paid directly to the members of the society who will be entitled to<br \/>\ncollect the cheque from the society and present themselves before the bank and<br \/>\ncollect their respective amount directly from the bank on presentation of their<br \/>\nrespective cheques.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.           The third contention relates to an audit report against the<br \/>\nemployees of the bank which has nothing to do with the petitioner society or its<br \/>\nmembers nor with the amount so deposited by them in the fixed deposit. The<br \/>\ndeposit in F.D.I. has nowhere been denied and rather specifically admitted and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>thus they have no right to withhold it or deny the benefits accrued to the<br \/>\nmembers of the petitioner society whose money has been deposited\/invested in<br \/>\nthe bank.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.           The fact remains that the money was deposited by the members<br \/>\nfor allocation\/allotment of land which was duly deposited by the society in fixed<br \/>\ndeposit in the bank so that the interest accrued and no malafide can be attached<br \/>\nto it and once the allocation\/allotment of land was not made the members of the<br \/>\nsociety were certainly entitled to refund of the amount with interest as accrued.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.           The counsel for the respondent has further in their counter affidavit<br \/>\nsubmitted in Paragraph-13 specifically that no order has been annexed of the<br \/>\nDistrict Consumer Forum or State Consumer Forum to substantiate the<br \/>\ncontention raised on behalf of the members. The counsel for the petitioner has<br \/>\nfiled an I.A.No.1226\/08 for bringing the award of the District Consumer Forum,<br \/>\nBokaro on record and thus even this contention is incorrect. It has also filed a<br \/>\nchart indicating the details of the names of the members and the principal<br \/>\namount to be refunded to non-plot holder members and the different orders<br \/>\npassed by the learned Consumer Forum.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.           It is well settled that the legal position of the banker in connection<br \/>\nwith the fixed deposit is one of the debtor and the banker continues to be a<br \/>\ndebtor, even though the period fixed for the deposit has expired.        The fixed<br \/>\ndeposit is a complete statutory contract between the bank and the depositor and<br \/>\ncontractual obligation cannot be altered or changed. What is required under law<br \/>\nis that the banker should obtain a law of authority from the customer before<br \/>\npaying back such deposits to a person other than the depositor. In the instant<br \/>\ncase once the petitioner who was the depositor issues the cheque to the<br \/>\nmembers the same will amount to conferring the law of authority on the Bank to<br \/>\nhonour the cheque and pay the amount to the beneficiary.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.           In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Company Vrs. Harnam Singh<br \/>\nAIR 1955 (SC) 590 the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court observed that in banking<br \/>\ntransactions the following rules are now well settled:-\n<\/p>\n<p>              (a)The obligation of the bank to pay the cheque of the customer<br \/>\nand that the same can be collected from the branch at which he keeps his<br \/>\naccount.    The only condition on which the bank can refuse when police has<br \/>\nseized the money in the bank under Section 102 Cr.P.,C.,1973 and or under sub<br \/>\nSection 3 of Section 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is not the issue in<br \/>\nthe present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.           In case the Banks are permitted to dishonour their commitments by<br \/>\nadopting such subterfuges, the entire commercial and business transactions will<br \/>\ncome to a grinding halt. This principle has been reiterated in large number of<br \/>\nBank Guarantee cases by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court. The only exception is in<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>case of a fraud, which is of an egregious nature committed by the beneficiaries<br \/>\nagainst the Bank.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.              Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this<br \/>\nwrit petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent bank to forthwith<br \/>\ndetermine the up-to-date maturity value with interest as against the investment<br \/>\nmade in fixed deposit scheme at Bokaro Steel City vide F.D.R. as per the details<br \/>\ngiven in Paragraph 1 of this judgment\/order honour the cheques tobe presented<br \/>\nby the members of the society and further activate the S.B. Account No.1 and<br \/>\nS.B. Account No.2 appertaining to the provident fund of the employees of the<br \/>\nsociety and allow the operation of withdrawal of amount with admissible interest<br \/>\nin accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.       This writ petition is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                    (Ajit Kumar Sinha,J.)<\/p>\n<p>Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi<br \/>\nDated :   25.10.2008<br \/>\nNKC\/ A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Bokaro Steel Employees Co- Ope vs The State Of Jhakrhand &amp; Ors on 25 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1543 of 2008 Bokaro Steel Employees Co-operative House Construction Society Limited, B.S.City&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;Petitioner Vrs. The State of Jharkhand &amp; Others&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.Respondents PRESENT : HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA [&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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-231056","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bokaro Steel Employees Co- Ope vs The State Of Jhakrhand &amp; Ors on 25 October, 2008 - 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\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bokaro Steel Employees Co- Ope vs The State Of Jhakrhand &amp; Ors on 25 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-24T18:19:00+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bokaro Steel Employees Co- Ope vs The State Of Jhakrhand &amp; Ors on 25 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-24T18:19:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":968,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Bokaro Steel Employees Co- Ope vs The State Of Jhakrhand &amp; Ors on 25 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-24T18:19:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bokaro Steel Employees Co- Ope vs The State Of Jhakrhand &amp; Ors on 25 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Bokaro Steel Employees Co- Ope vs The State Of Jhakrhand &amp; Ors on 25 October, 2008 - 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\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bokaro Steel Employees Co- Ope vs The State Of Jhakrhand &amp; Ors on 25 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-24T18:19:00+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bokaro Steel Employees Co- Ope vs The State Of Jhakrhand &amp; Ors on 25 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-24T18:19:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008"},"wordCount":968,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008","name":"Bokaro Steel Employees Co- Ope vs The State Of Jhakrhand &amp; Ors on 25 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-24T18:19:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bokaro-steel-employees-co-ope-vs-the-state-of-jhakrhand-ors-on-25-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bokaro Steel Employees Co- Ope vs The State Of Jhakrhand &amp; Ors on 25 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/231056","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=231056"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231056\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}