{"id":235475,"date":"2010-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-07-23T16:59:27","modified_gmt":"2016-07-23T11:29:27","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs S.Shanmugam on 25 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Managing Director vs S.Shanmugam on 25 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 25\/10\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.4260 of 2008\na n d\nW.P.(MD) No.13249 of 2009\n\nW.P.(MD) No.4260 of 2008\n\nThe Managing Director\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation\n  (Madurai Division -1) Ltd\nBye-Pass Road\nMadurai.\t\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\nVs\n\nS.Shanmugam\t\t\t\t...\t\tRespondent\n\n\nW.P.(MD) No.13249 OF 2009\n\nS.Shanmugam\t\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\nVs\n\nThe Managing Director\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation\n  (Madurai Division -1) Ltd\nBye-Pass Road\nMadurai.\t\t\t\t...\t\tRespondent\n\n\nPRAYER in W.P (MD) No.4260 of 2008\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of certiorari to call\nfor the records pertaining to the order passed by the labour Judge, Madurai in\nI.D.No.125 of 2004 dated 14\/6\/2007 and quash the same as illegal.\n\nPRAYER in W.P (MD) No.13249 of 2009\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of certiorarified\nmandamus to call for the records relating to the award passed by the labour\nCourt in I.D.No.128 of 2004 and quash the same in so far as it relates to denial\nof backwages to the petitioner, consequently to direct the respondent to pay the\nbackwages to the petitioner with effect from 5\/10\/2000.\n\nIn W.P.(MD) No.4260 of 2008\n\n!For Petitioner     ... Mr.M.Prakash\n^For Respondents    ... Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi\n\nIn W.P.(MD) No.13249 of 2009\nFor Petitioner     ... Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi\nFor Respondents\t   ... Mr.M.Prakash\n\n- - - - -\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n\tIt is the State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division (herein after\ncalled as the 'Management'), aggrieved by both the order of reinstatement with\nservice continuity but without backwages has filed the first writ petition viz.,\nW.P.(MD) No.4260 of 2008.\n\n\t2.  In the second writ petition viz., W.P.(MD) No.13249 of 2009, the\nworkman has filed the writ petition, challenging that portion of the order in\ndeclining to grant the benefit of backwages with effect from 5\/10\/2000, which is\na date of his non-employment.\n\n\t3.  In view of the interconnectivity between both the writ petitions, they\nwere grouped together and a common order is passed.\n\n\t4.  In the first writ petition, notice regarding admission was granted on\n30\/4\/2008.  Pending the writ petition, interim stay was granted.  By order dated\n22\/8\/2008, interim stay was extended until further orders in M.P.No.1 of 2008.\nSubsequently, on a petition being filed by the workman in M.P.No.2 of 2008, this\nCourt granted a payment under section 17 (B) as an interim relief.  The\npetitioner thereafter, filed M.P.No.1 of 2009 seeking for the payment of full\nwages.\n\n\t5.  It is during the pendency of the writ petition, the worker has filed\nanother cross-objection which came up for admission on 15\/12\/2009 and\naccordingly, it was admitted.  On notice, the Management has filed a counter.\nIt is seen from the records that the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.13249 of 2009 was\nappointed as a Conductor on 20\/10\/1993.  Subsequently, the Corporation found\nthat he was a chronic absentee and a charge memo was issued in terms of standing\norder Clause 16 (7) and a domestic enquiry was conducted.   The petitioner not\nonly did not give any explanation also did not attend the enquiry.  The enquiry\nwas held ex parte and the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner did not give any\nexplanation and therefore, he was dismissed from service on 5\/10\/2000.\nSubsequently after three and a half years later, he raised the dispute.  Before\nthe labour Court, on the side of the workman, two documents were filed and\nmarked as Exs.W.1 and W.2 and on the side of the Management,  8 documents  were\nfiled and marked as Exs.M.1 to M.8.  The labour Court found that the enquiry was\nheld fair and proper and despite several opportunities, the petitioner did not\navail the same.  But, however, the labour Court also found that the charge of\nabsence was proved.  But considering the petitioner was worked for seven years\nand he was searching for his lost son and also due to ailment, he could not come\nto work and hence, the Labour Court, Madurai dismissed the claim of back wages.\nBut on the quantum of relief, the Management contended that since the petitioner\nwho did not come to work, no wages should be paid to him on that account.\n\n\t6.  In this context, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the\nSupreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal reported in (2007) 2 SCC\n433, wherein it is held as follows:-\n\n19.But the cases referred to above, where back wages were awarded, related to\ntermination\/retrenchment which were held to be illegal and invalid for non-\ncompliance with statutory requirements or related to cases where the Court found\nthat the termination was motivated or amounted to victimisation. The decisions\nrelating to back wages payable on illegal retrenchment or termination may have\nno application to the case like the present one, where the termination\n(dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement) is by way of punishment for\nmisconduct in a departmental inquiry, and the court confirms the finding\nregarding misconduct, but only interferes with the punishment being of the view\nthat it is excessive, and awards a lesser punishment, resulting in the\nreinstatement of employee. Where the power under Article 226 or Section 11-A of\nthe Industrial Disputes Act (or any other similar provision) is exercised by any\ncourt to interfere with the punishment on the ground that it is excessive and\nthe employee deserves a lesser punishment, and a consequential direction is\nissued for reinstatement, the court is not holding that the employer was in the\nwrong or that the dismissal was illegal and invalid. The court is merely\nexercising its discretion to award a lesser punishment. Till such power is\nexercised, the dismissal is valid and in force. When the punishment is reduced\nby a court as being excessive, there can be either a direction for reinstatement\nor a direction for a nominal lump sum compensation. And if reinstatement is\ndirected, it can be effective either prospectively from the date of such\nsubstitution of punishment (in which event, there is no continuity of service)\nor retrospectively, from the date on which the penalty of termination was\nimposed (in which event, there can be a consequential direction relating to\ncontinuity of service). What requires to be noted in cases where finding of\nmisconduct is affirmed and only the punishment is interfered with (as contrasted\nfrom cases where termination is held to be illegal or void) is that there is no\nautomatic reinstatement; and if reinstatement is directed, it is not\nautomatically with retrospective effect from the date of termination. Therefore,\nwhere reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment,\nneither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow\nas a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the\nmisconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential\nbenefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for\nthe period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the\ndelinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the\nmisconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such\ncases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for\npurposes of pensionary\/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like\nincrements, promotions, etc.\"\n\n\t7.  Therefore, the Managements' contention that the labour Court has\nexercised its discretion improperly, cannot be accepted.  The workman's claim\nthat he is eligible for back wages even for the period that he did not work also\ncannot be considered.\n\n\t8.  In this context, the Supreme court in case of absence, the discretion\nof the labour Court to exercise its power under Section 11 A came to be\nconsidered in L&T Komatsu Ltd. v. N. Udayakumar<\/a> reported in (2008) 1 SCC 224 and\nthe relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-\n\n9.In LIC of India v. R. Dhandapani2,<\/a> it was held as follows\n......\n<\/pre>\n
In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps well-meant but
\nwholly unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of
\njudicial reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the courts must be seen
\nto be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur
\nand justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the courts tends to
\ndegenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is
\nessential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the
\nconclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the
\njudicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those
\nfindings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the
\nexpense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually
\nirreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity,
\nauthority, predictability and respectability. (See Kerala Solvent Extractions
\nLtd. v. A. Unnikrishnan3.)<\/p>\n
Though under Section 11-A, the Tribunal has the power to reduce the quantum of
\npunishment it has to be done within the parameters of law. Possession of power
\nis itself not sufficient; it has to be exercised in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court found that the Industrial Tribunal had not indicated any reason
\nto justify variations of the penalty imposed. Though learned counsel for the
\nrespondent tried to justify the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the
\nTribunal and the learned Single Judge have considered the case in its proper
\nperspective, we do not find any substance in the plea. Industrial Tribunals and
\nLabour Courts are not forums whose task is to dole out private benevolence to
\nworkmen found by the Labour Court\/Tribunal to be guilty of misconduct. The
\nTribunal and the High Court, in this case, have found a pattern of defiance and
\nproved misconduct on not one but on several occasions. The compassion which was
\nshown by the Tribunal and unfortunately endorsed by the learned Single Judge was
\nfully misplaced.”\n<\/p>\n
10.In Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade4<\/a> it was noted as follows: (SCC
\np.141, para 20)<\/p>\n
“20. It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour
\nCourt\/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded
\nby the management where the workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The
\nsaid area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of
\nthis Court referred to hereinabove and it is certainly not unlimited as has been
\nobserved by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be
\nexercised under Section 11-A is available only on the existence of certain
\nfactors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so
\nas to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any mitigating
\ncircumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct
\nof the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In
\nthe absence of any such factor existing, the Labour Court cannot by way of
\nsympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the
\npunishment. As noticed hereinabove at least in two of the cases cited before us
\ni.e. Orissa Cement Ltd.5 and New Shorrock Mills6 this Court held: ‘Punishment of
\ndismissal for using of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate.’
\nIn this case all the forums below have held that the language used by the
\nworkman was filthy. We too are of the opinion that the language used by the
\nworkman is such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilised society. Use of
\nsuch abusive language against a superior officer, that too not once but twice,
\nin the presence of his subordinates cannot be termed to be an indiscipline
\ncalling for lesser punishment in the absence of any extenuating factor referred
\nto hereinabove.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10.  In view of the above factual  matrix and the legal precedents, both
\nthe writ petitions are dismissed.  No costs.  Consequently, the connected
\nMiscellaneous Petitions are closed.  The Management is hereby directed to
\nimplement the award within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
\ncopy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
mvs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Managing Director vs S.Shanmugam on 25 October, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25\/10\/2010 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.4260 of 2008 a n d W.P.(MD) No.13249 of 2009 W.P.(MD) No.4260 of 2008 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division -1) Ltd Bye-Pass Road […]<\/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-235475","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Managing Director vs S.Shanmugam on 25 October, 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\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Managing Director vs S.Shanmugam on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-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=\"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-23T11:29:27+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs S.Shanmugam on 25 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-23T11:29:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":724,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs S.Shanmugam on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-23T11:29:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs S.Shanmugam on 25 October, 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":"The Managing Director vs S.Shanmugam on 25 October, 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\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs S.Shanmugam on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-23T11:29:27+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs S.Shanmugam on 25 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-23T11:29:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010"},"wordCount":724,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010","name":"The Managing Director vs S.Shanmugam on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-23T11:29:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-s-shanmugam-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs S.Shanmugam on 25 October, 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\/235475","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=235475"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235475\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235475"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235475"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235475"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}