{"id":235516,"date":"1997-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997"},"modified":"2016-12-17T17:53:19","modified_gmt":"2016-12-17T12:23:19","slug":"dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997","title":{"rendered":"Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: S.C.Agrawal<\/div>\n
Bench: S.C. Agrawal, V.N. Khare<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDENA BANK\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKIRITIKUMAR T.PATEL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t19\/11\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nS.C. AGRAWAL, V.N. KHARE\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t       THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tHon’ble Mr.Justice S.C.Agrawal
\n\t\tHon’ble Mr.Justice V.N.Khare
\nP.P.Rao,   Sr.Adv.,   Ramji   Srinivasan,   Shaju   Francis,
\nR.Sasiprabhu, Advs. with him for the appellant
\nJitendra   Sharma,   Sr.Adv.,\t(A.C.),\t  Ms.Gunwant   Dara,
\nMs.Minakshi Vij, Advs. with him for the Respondent
\nRaj Kumar  Gupta H.V.I.Sharma  and A.N.Bardiyar,  Advs.\t for
\nIntervenors.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
\n     S.C.AGRAWAL, J.:\n<\/p>\n
     Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     The question  that\t falls\tfor  consideration  in\tthis
\nappeal is  whether the expression “full wages last drawn” in
\nSection\t 17-B\tof  the\t  Industrial  Disputes\t Act,\t1947
\n[hereinafter referred  to as as `the Act’] means wages drawn
\nby a workman at the time of termination of his employment or
\nwages which he would have drawn on the date of the award.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent  was employed  as Clerk-cum-Cashier with
\nthe appellant-Bank.  After holding  an inquiry\tinto charges
\nrelating to  misappropriation of  funds of  the Bank  of the
\ntune of\t Rs.5,000\/- as\tcontained in charge sheet dated June
\n18, 1983  he was  dismissed by order dated July 1, 1986. The
\nsaid dismissal\tof the respondent gave rise to an industrial
\ndispute which  was referred  for adjudication to the Central
\nIndustrial  Tribunal,\t[hereinafter  referred\tto  as\t`the
\nTribunal’]. The\t tribunal found\t that the  charges were\t not
\nestablished and\t held that  the dismissal  of the respondent
\nwas illegal.  The Tribunal  directed  reinstatement  of\t the
\nrespondent in  service. The  appellant-Bank has filed a writ
\npetition under\tArticle\t 227  of  the  Constitution  in\t the
\nGujarat\t High  Court  challenging  the\tsaid  award  of\t the
\nTribunal and  the said\twrit petition in pending in the High
\nCourt. In  the said  writ petition the Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court  on September  11, 1991  passed in  interim order
\nstaying the operation of the award on the condition that the
\nappellant-Bank would  comply with  the provisions of Section
\n17-B of\t the Act  and will  pay\t to  the  respondent  during
\npendency  of  the  writ\t petition  wages  as  per  the\tsaid
\nprovisions subject  to the  respondent\tcomplying  with\t its
\nrequirement meaning  thereby that he will be paid wages last
\ndrawn  or  which  would\t have  been  drawn  if\the  was\t not
\nsuspended. An  application was\tsubmitted by  the respondent
\nfor modification  of the  said order seeking a direction for
\npayment of  wages as  on the  date of  the award.  The\tsaid
\napplication was,  however, rejected by the Division Bench of
\nthe High Court by order dated October 22, 1991. Subsequently
\nanother application  was filed\tby the respondent whereunder
\nit was\tsubmitted that\tduring pendency of the writ petition
\nin the High Court settlements had been signed with regard to
\nwage revision,\tetc., the  last such  settlement being dated
\n14, 1995  and that  the said settlement had been implemented
\nby the\tappellant-Bank in  respect of  employees already  in
\nemployment. The respondent claimed that he was also entitled
\nfor revision  in wage structure including Dearness Allowance
\nand other perks and perquisites. On the said application the
\nlearned Single\tJudge on  September 26, 1995 passed an order
\ndirecting that\tthe respondent\tshall be  paid the  wages as
\nrevised by  the\t appellant-Bank\t including  the\t increments,
\nD.A., etc.  which are  granted to all the employees pursuant
\nto two\tsettlements signed  during the\tpendency of the writ
\npetition between  the banking  industry and  the  All  India
\nTrade Unions  which are\t known as  the Fifth  and the  Sixth
\nBipartite Settlements  and that\t arrears be paid to him from
\nthe date of the award accordingly. The Letters Patent Appeal
\nfiled by  the appellant-Bank  against the  said order of the
\nlearned Single\tJudge was decided by a Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court  by the  impugned judgment dated February 7, 1996
\nwhereby the  direction given  by the  learned  Single  Judge
\nregarding  wages   payable  to\t the  respondent   has\tbeen
\nmaintained but\tthe direction  regarding  arrears  has\tbeen
\nmodified and  it has  been directed  that the appellant-Bank
\nshall deposit  all deposit of three years in the name of the
\nrespondent  and\t that  from  January  1,  1996\tonwards\t the
\nrespondent will\t be paid  according  to\t the  order  of\t the
\nlearned Single\tJudge and that the deposit will abide by the
\nfinal result  of  the  Special\tCivil  Application  but\t the
\ninterest accruing  on the fixed deposit shall be paid to the
\nrespondent. Feeling  aggrieved by  the said  judgment of the
\nDivision Bench\tof the\tHigh Court  the\t appellant-Bank\t has
\nfiled this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri P.P.Rao,  the learned senior counsel appearing for
\nthe appellant-Bank, has urged that under Section 17-B of the
\nAct the respondent is only entitled to payment of wages last
\ndrawn on  the date  of the termination of his employment and
\nthat the High Court was in error in directing that he should
\nbe paid the wages as revised by the appellant-Bank including
\nthe increments,\t D.A., etc.  which are\tgranted to  all\t the
\nemployees pursuant  to two  settlement between\tthe  banking
\nIndustry and  the All  India Trade Unions which are known as
\nthe Fifth  and the  Sixth Bipartite  Settlements which\twere
\nsigned during  the pendency of the writ petition in the High
\nCourt. It  has been  urged that\t the expression\t “full wages
\nlast drawn”  only means\t the quantum  of emoluments actually
\ndrawn by  the workman  at the time of the termination of his
\nemployment and\twould not  mean the  wages which the workman
\nwould be entitled in terms of the award whereby the order of
\ndismissal has  been set\t aside. In  support of his aforesaid
\nsubmission the\tlearned counsel\t has placed  reliance on the
\nfollowing decisions of the various High Court:\n<\/p>\n
1.   International Air Cargo Workers Union Vs. International
\n     Airports Authority of India, [1990] 1 LLJ 1192 (Mad.);\n<\/p>\n
2.   Daladdi Coop.  Agriculture\t Service  Society  Ltd.\t vs.
\n     Gurcharan Singh  & Anr.,  1993 (5)\t SLR 719  (Punjab  &
\n     Hary.);\n<\/p>\n
3.   Elpro International  Ltd. vs.  K..B.Joshi &  Ors., 1987
\n     Lab.I.C. 1468 at 1472-1473 (Bom);\n<\/p>\n
4.   The Kapurthala  Central Cooperative  Bank Ltd.  vs. the
\n     Presiding Officer,\t Labour Court, Jalandhar, 185 (2) 88
\n     Pun.L.R.74.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Jitendra  Sharma, the\t learned senior counsel, who
\nwas requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae since the
\nrespondent did\tnot chose  to appear in spite of notice, has
\nsubmitted that\tthe expression\t“full wages last drawn” does
\nnot connote the amount that was being paid to the workman at
\nthe time  of termination  of his  employment but  means\t the
\nwages that  would be  payable to him at the time of order of
\nreinstatement.\t In support of his aforesaid submission Shri
\nJitendra Sharma\t has referred  to the  Objects\tand  Reasons
\nunderlying the\tenactment of Section 17-B and has urged that
\nthe said  provisions have been enacted to give protection to
\na workman  who having  succeeded in  obtaining an award from
\nthe Labour  Court, Industrial  Tribunal or National Tribunal
\nsetting aside  the order  of termination  of his service and
\ndirecting that\the be  reinstated, is  not allowed to resume
\nwork because  the employer  has filed proceeding in the High
\nCourt or  in this  Court to  challenge the  said award.\t The
\nlearned counsel has urged that if the workman is to get only
\nwhat he\t was getting  at the  time  of\ttermination  of\t his
\nservice, whether  as subsistance allowance or wages, he gets
\nno benefit of the award in his favour and is put back to his
\nposition  as   a  suspended   or  charge   sheeted   workman
\nnotwithstanding the fact that termination order has been set
\naside. Shri  Jitendra Sharma  has also\temphasised  that  it
\ntakes years  to get  a matter  decided that  it could not be
\nthe intention  of Parliament  in enacting  Section 17-B that
\nworkman should\tonly be\t paid  wages  that  he\twas  drawing
\nseveral years  ago at  the time\t of the\t termination of\t his
\nservice. In  support of his submissions Shri Jitendra Sharma
\nhas placed  reliance on\t the following decisions of the High
\nCourts:\n<\/p>\n
i.   Vishveswaraya Iron\t and Steel  Ltd. vs. M. Chandrappa &
\n     Anr., 1994 (84) FJR (Kar);\n<\/p>\n
ii.  Carona Sahu  Co. Ltd vs. A.K.Munakhan & Ors., 1995 (70)
\n     FLR 25 (Bom);\n<\/p>\n
iii. Kirtiben B.Amin vs. Mafatlal Apparels, 1995 (2) GLR 804
\n     (Guj.);\n<\/p>\n
iv.  Macneil and Magor Ltd. vs. 1st  Additional Labour Court
\n     and Anr., 1995 (1) Labour Law Notes 1014 (Mad);
\nv.   Fouress Eng. (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration
\n     & Ors., 1987 (1) LLJ 485 (Delhi); and
\nvi.  P.Channaiah vs.  Dy.Ex.Eng. R.R.Dist.  & Ors.  1996 (2)
\n     LLJ 240 (A.P.).\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Raj  kumar Gupta,  the  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nIntervenor,  has  also\tplaced\treliance  on  the  decisions
\nreferred to  above on  which reliance  was  placed  by\tShri
\nJitendra Sharma\t and has  emphasised the hardship that would
\nbe caused  to the workman if the expression “full wages last
\ndrawn” is  construed to\t mean wages that were being drawn by
\nhim at\tthe time of termination of his employment because it
\nwould not  take into  account the rise in the cost of living
\nduring the period the matter was pending adjudication before
\nthe Tribunal  and is  under consideration  before  the\tHigh
\nCourt or this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     It would  be convenient  at this  stage to\t set out the
\nprovisions contained  in Section 17-B of the Act which reads
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
     Section 17-B. Payment of full wages
\n     to workman\t pending  proceeding  is
\n     higher courts.  – Where in any case
\n     a\t Labour\t  court,   Tribunal   or
\n     National  Tribunal\t  by  its  award
\n     directs   reinstatement\tof   any
\n     workman and  the  employer\t prefers
\n     any proceedings  against such award
\n     in a  High\t Court\tor  the\t Supreme
\n     Court, the employer shall be liable
\n     to pay  such  workman,  during  the
\n     period   of    pendency   of   such
\n     proceeding in the High Court or the
\n     Supreme  Court,   full  wages  last
\n     drawn  by\thim,  inclusive\t of  any
\n     maintenance allowance admissible to
\n     him under\tany rule  if the workman
\n     had  not\tbee  employed\tin   any
\n     establishment  during  such  period
\n     and an  affidavit by  such\t workman
\n     had been  filed to\t that effect  in
\n     such Court:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided that where it is proved to
\n     the satisfaction  of the High Court
\n     or\t the  Supreme  Court  that  such
\n     workman had  ben employed\tand  had
\n     been\treceiving\tadequate
\n     remuneration during  any period  or
\n     part thereof, the Court shall order
\n     that  no  wages  shall  be\t payable
\n     under this\t section for such period
\n     or part, as the case may be.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  objects   and\t reasons   for\tenacting   the\tsaid
\nprovisions were as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     “When Labour  Courts pass\taward of
\n     reinstatement,  these   are   often
\n     contested by  an  employer\t in  the
\n     Supreme Court  of High  Courts.  It
\n     was felt  that  the  delay\t in  the
\n     implementation of\tthe award  cause
\n     hardship to  the workman concerned.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It\t was,\ttherefore,  proposed  to
\n     provide the  payment of  the  wages
\n     last   drawn    by\t  the\t workman
\n     concerned,\t     under\t certain
\n     conditions, from  the date\t of  the
\n     award  till  the  case  is\t fianlly
\n     decided in\t the Supreme  Court High
\n     courts.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It would  thus appear  that the  object underlying\t the
\nenacting of  the provisions  contained in Section 17-B is to
\ngive relief  to the  workman in\t whose favour  an  award  of
\nreinstatement has  been passed\tby the\tLabour Court and the
\nsaid award  is under  challenge in  the High  Court of\tthis
\nCourt. The said relief has been given with a view to relieve
\nthe hardship that would be caused to a workman on account of
\ndelay in  implementation of  the award\tas a  result of\t the
\npendency of the proceedings in the High Court or this Court.
\nThe question  for consideration\t is: what  is the  extent to
\nwhich such  relief has\tbeen granted to a workman under this
\nprovision? The\tobjects and reason do not indicate an answer
\nto this\t question and  its answer  has to  be found  in\t the
\nprovisions of  the enactment.  Since  the  expression  “full
\nwages last  drawn” in Section 17-B has been construed by the
\nvarious High  Court in\tthe decisions  referred to  above we
\nwould briefly refer to the same:\n<\/p>\n
     A\tDivision  Bench\t of  the  Karnataka  High  Court  in
\nVishveswaraya Iron  and Steel  Ltd. vs. M. Chandrappa & Anr.
\n[Supra] has  held that the words “full wage last drawn” take
\ninto their  fold the  wages drawn on the date of termination
\nof the services plus the yearly increment and the D.A. to be
\nworked out  till the  date of the award. In taking this view
\nthe learned  Judge have\t pointed out that it is not uncommon
\nthat the  proceedings before  the Labour Court linger on for
\nyears and  in some cases it takes a decade and that if after
\na decade  the full  wages last drawn are to be paid from the
\ndate of\t the award  during the\tpendency of  the proceedings
\nbefore the  Court at  the same rate at which the wages where
\nlast drawn  by the workman when he was removed, dismissed or
\nterminated from\t the  service,\tit  would  cause  him  great
\nprejudice and injustice and will result in harassment of the
\nworkman and  that during  the last  period of 10 years there
\nwould be  escaiations in  the cost of living and there would
\nalso be\t increase in the wages paid to the workman doing the
\nwork of similar nature.\n<\/p>\n
     The said  decision was followed by learned Single Judge
\nof the\tGujarat High Court  in Kirtiben B. Amin vs. Mafatlal
\nApparels [supra].\n<\/p>\n
     In Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. vs. A.K.Munakhan & Ors [supra],
\na Division  Bench of  the Bombay High Court, after referring
\nto the\tdecision of  the Karnataka  High Court Vishveswaraya
\nIron  and  Steel  Ltd.\t[supra],  has  laid  down  that\t the
\nexpression “full  wages last  drawn” means  the\t full  wages
\nwhich the  workman was\tentitled to draw in pursuance of the
\naward and  the implementation  of which\t is suspended during
\nthe pendency  of the  proceedings. The\tlearned Judges\thave
\nobserved that  though the  work “drawn” connotes past tense,
\nit is obvious that the proper construction of the section is
\nthat the  workman is  entitled to  the full  wages which the
\nworkman would  have  been  entitled  to\t draw  but  for\t the
\npendency of the proceedings in the High Court or this Court.
\nAccording to  the learned  Judges every\t component of  wages
\npayable on  the\t date  of  the\taward  must  be\t taken\tinto
\nconsideration while  determining what were the wages payable
\nto the\tworkman on  the date  of the award. It has been held
\nthat this  interpretation of the expression “full wages last
\ndrawn”\tsubserves   of\tthe  object  and  intention  of\t the
\nParliament in enacting Section 17-B of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In Macneil\t and Magor  Ltd. vs.  1st Additional  Labour
\nCourt and Anr. [supra], a learned Single Judge of the Madras
\nHigh Court has followed the said decision of the Bombay High
\nCourt in    Carona  Sahu  Co.  ltd.  [supra].  Similarly  in
\nP.Channaiah vs.\t Dy. Ex.  Eng. [supra] the Division Bench of
\nthe Andhra Pradesh High Court has followed the said decision
\nof the Bombay High Court in Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. [supra].\n<\/p>\n
     The  High\t Court\tof   Punjab  &\tHaryana\t in  Daladdi
\nCooperative Agriculture\t Service Society  Ltd. vs. Gurcharan
\nSingh &\t Anr., 1993  (5) SLR  719,  has,  however,  taken  a
\ndifferent  view.  The  learned\tJudge  have  held  that\t the
\nprovisions in  Section 17-B imply that if the workman is not
\ngainfully employed  in any  establishment he  is entitled to
\nthe payment  of wages at the same rate at which he was being
\npaid immediately before the termination of his services.\n<\/p>\n
     According to  the learned\tJudges the legislature while
\nintroduction Section  17-B intended  that  the\tworkman\t who
\nremains unemployed  in spite  of an award having been passed
\nby the\tcompetent court or Tribunal, should be paid at least
\nthe wages  at the  rate last  drawn by him so that he may be
\nable to\t subsist. It  has been held that the workman who has
\nnot been  reinstated is entitled to payment of wages only at
\nthe rate last drawn by him and not at the same rate at which
\nthe wages  are being  paid to  the workmen  who are actually
\nworking.\n<\/p>\n
     The decision  of the  Delhi High  Court in Fouress Eng.
\n(India) Pvt.  Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration & Ors., on which
\nreliance has been placed by Shri Sharma, does not throw much
\nlight on  the meaning  of the  expression “full\t wages\tlast
\ndrawn”.\n<\/p>\n
     The  decision   of\t the  Bombay  High  Court  in  Elpro
\nInternational Ltd  vs. K..B.Joshi & Ors. [supra] and that of
\nthe Punjab  &  Haryana\tHigh  Court  in\t Kapurthala  Central
\nCooperative Bank  Ltd. vs.  The\t Presiding  Officer,  Labour
\nCourt, Jalandhar<\/a>  [supra], on which reliance has been placed
\nby Shri\t Rao do\t not deal with the meaning of the expression
\n“full wages last drawn”.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t Elpro\t International\tLtd.   vs.  K..B.Joshi,\t the
\nDivision Bench of the Bombay High Court was dealing with the
\nchallenge to the validity  of the provisions in Section 17-B
\non the ground that the same are vague and arbitrary inasmuch
\nas no  provisions is  made as  to what\twould happen  to the
\namount paid  if ultimately  the employer  succeeds  and\t the
\naward is  quashed and set aside and are therefore, violative
\nof Article  14 of  the Constitution.  It was also urged that
\nthe said  provisions encroach  upon the\t powers of  the High
\nCourt and  this Court  under Articles  226 and\t136  of\t the
\nConstitution.  The   High  Court   has\trejected   both\t the
\ncontention. It\twas held that the absence of a provisions as
\nto what\t would happen  to the amount paid under Section 17-B
\nif ultimately  the employer  succeeds in the litigation does
\nnot make  the section either vague or arbitrary because what
\nis to  be paid\tunder Section  17-B  is\t in  the  nature  of
\nsubsistence allowance  that is payable under Section 10-A of
\nthe Industrial\tEmployment [Standing Orders] Act, 1946 which
\nis neither  refundable nor  recoverable irrespective  of the
\nresult of the enquiry. As regards challenge on the ground of
\nencroachment upon the powers of the High Court under Article
\n226 and\t this Court  under Article  136 of the Constitution,
\nthe High  Court was  of the  view  that\t Section  17-B\tonly
\nguarantees to  the workman  the\t payment  of  wages  by\t the
\nemployer during\t the pendency  of the proceedings before the
\nHigh Court  or the Supreme Court and that too subject to the
\nconditions laid\t down by  the said  section and the proviso,
\nirrespective of\t the result  of the  proceedings and it also
\nimposes an  obligation upon the workman concerned to file an
\naffidavit before  the Court  stating that  he has  not\tbeen
\nemployed in  any establishment\tduring the  pendency of\t the
\nproceedings  and  it  also  absolves  the  employer  of\t his
\nobligation to  pay such\t wages if he is able to prove to the
\nsatisfaction  of   the\tCourt  that  the  workman  had\tbeen
\notherwise and  had been receiving adequate remuneration. The
\nHigh Court  has observed that Section 17-B nowhere lays down
\nthat in\t extreme cases\tit is demonstrated that award passed
\nis either  without jurisdiction or is otherwise a nullity or
\ngrossly erroneous or perverse, the High Court or the Supreme
\nCourt is  deterred from exercising its powers under Articles
\n226 and 136 of the Constitution. On that view the High Court
\nheld that  Section 17-B does not in any way encroach upon or
\noverride the  powers of the High Court under Article 226 and
\nthis Court Article 136 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Similarly in  the Kapurthala  Central Cooperative\tBank
\nLtd. vs.  The Presiding\t Officer,  Labour  Court,  Jalandhar<\/a>
\n[supra] the  High Court\t of Punjab  & Haryana considered the
\nvalidity of  the challenge  the Section 17-B as violative of
\nthe provisions\tof  Article  226  of  the  Constitution\t and
\nnegativing the\tsaid challenge it was held that\t Section 17-
\nB does\tnot in\tany way\t interfere or  restrict the same and
\nthat the  section only guarantees the workers the payment of
\nwages by the employer during the course of proceeding in the
\nHigh Court  or the  Supreme Court  of Course  subject to the
\nsafeguard provided  for irrespective  of the  result of\t the
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t International\t Air   Cargo   Workers\t Union\t vs.
\nInternational  Airports\t  Authority  of\t India<\/a>\t[supra}\t the
\nDivision Bench of the Madras High Court has expressly stated
\nthat they were not dealing with a case where a workman whose
\nservices have  been terminated\twas ordered to be reinstated
\nby an award of the Tribunal and that it was a case where the
\nTribunal  had\tdirected  that\tmanagement  to\tabsolve\t the
\nworkman. Without  deciding whether  Section  17-B  would  be
\nattracted in  such a  case the High Court while applying the
\nprinciples underlying  the said\t section, directly by way of
\ninterim relief,\t payment at  the rate the workmen were being
\npaid by\t the  contractor  and  in  that\t context  there\t are
\nobservations to\t the effect  that even if Section 17-B would
\nbe attracted  no directions  could have\t been issued  to pay
\nwages more than the last wages drawn.\n<\/p>\n
     As per  the decisions  of the  High Court\treferred  to
\nabove the expression “full wages last drawn” in Section\t 17-
\nB can mean as under:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  wages only at the rate last drawn and not the same rate
\n     at which  the wages  are being  paid to the workman who
\n     are actually  working. [Daladdi Cooperative Agriculture
\n     Service Society Ltd. vs. Gurcharan Singh]\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Wages drawn  on the date of termination of the services
\n     plus the yearly increment and the Dearness Allowance to
\n     be\t worked\t  out  till   the   date   of\tthe   award.\n<\/p>\n
     [Vishveswaraya Iron  and Steel  Ltd. vs. M.Chandrappa &
\n     Anr. and Kirtiben B. Amin vs. Mafatlal Apparels]\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Full  wages which\t the workman was entitled to draw in
\n     pursuance of  the award and the implementation of which
\n     is suspended  during the  pendency\t of  the  proceeding
\n     [Carona Sahu  Co. Ltd. vs. A.K.Munakhan & Ors., Macneil
\n     and Magor\tLtd. vs.  1st Additional Labour Court & Anr.
\n     and P.Channaiah vs. Dy.Eng.]
\n     The first\tconstruction give  to the  words “full wages
\nlast drawn”  their plain and material meaning. The second as
\nwell as\t the third  construction read  something  more\tthan
\ntheir plain and material meaning in this words. In substance
\nthese construction read the words “full wages last drawn” as
\n“full wages  which would  have been drawn”. Such an extended
\nmeaning to  the words  “full wages last drawn” does not find
\nsupport in  the language  of  Section  17-B.  Nor  can\tthis
\nextended meaning  be based  on\tthe  object  underlying\t the
\nenactment of Section 17-B.\n<\/p>\n
     As indicated  earlier Section  17-B has been enacted by
\nParliament with\t a view\t to give relief to a workman who has
\nbeen ordered  to be  reinstated under the  award of a Labour
\nCourt or  the Industrial  Tribunal during  the\tpendency  of
\nproceedings in\twhich the  said\t award\tis  under  challenge
\nbefore the  High Court\tor the\tSupreme\t Court.\t The  object
\nunderlying the\tprovision is to relieve a certain extent the
\nhardship that  is caused  to the workman due to delay in the
\nimplementation\tto   the  workman   is\tin   the  nature  of
\nsubsistence allowance  which  would  not  be  refundable  or
\nrecoverable from  the workman even if the award is set aside
\nby the\tHigh Court  or this  Court. Since  the payment is of
\nsuch a character Parliament thought it proper to limit it to
\nthe extent of the wages which were drawn by the workman when
\nhe was\tin service and when his services were terminated and
\ntherefore used\tthe words  “full wages\tlast drawn”. To read
\nthese words to mean wages which would have been drawn by the
\nworkman\t if  he\t had  continued\t in  service  if  the  order
\nterminating his services had not passed since it has been by
\nthe award of the Labour of Industrial Tribunal, would result
\nin so enlarging the benefit as to comprehend the relief that
\nhas been  granted under\t the award  that is under challenge.
\nSince the  amount is  not refundable  or recoverable  in the
\neven of\t the award  being set  aside it\t would result in the
\nemployer being\trequired to  give effect to the award during
\nthe pendency  of the proceeding challenging the award before
\nthe High  Court or  the supreme Court without his being able
\nto recover the said amount in the event of the awarded being
\nset aside.  We\tare  unable  to\t constitute  the  provisions
\ncontained in  Section 17-B,  to cast  such a  burden on\t the
\nemployer. In  our opinion,  therefore, the words “full wages
\nlast drawn”  must be  given their plain and material meaning
\nand they  cannot be  given the\textended meaning as given by
\nthe Karnataka  High Court  Visveswarya Iroon  &\t Steel\tLtd.
\n[supra] or  the Bombay\tHigh Court  in Carona  Sahu Co. Ltd.
\n[supra].\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Jitendra  Sharma has\tlaid emphasis  on  the\tword
\n“full” in  the expression  “full wages\tlast drawn”  and has
\nsubmitted that\tthe said  word implies\tthat the  last drawn
\nmust be the was which the workman would have drawn under the
\naward.\tWe   are  unable  to  agree.  In  our  opinion,\t the
\nexpression “full”  only emphasis  that\tall  the  emoluments
\nwhich are  included in\t“wages” as defined in clause [rr] of
\nsection 2 of the Act so as to include in “wages” as referred
\nto in  sub-clauses (i)\tto (iv)\t are required to be paid. In
\nthis context,  it may also be mentioned that in Section 17-B
\nParliament  has\t also  used  the  words\t “inclusive  of\t any
\nmaintenance allowance  admissible to  him under\t to him\t any
\nrule”. These  words indicate that maintenance allowance that
\nis  admissible\tunder  any  rule  is  required\tto  be\tpaid
\nirrespective of\t the amount which was actually being paid as
\nmaintenance allowance  to the  workman. But  with regard  to
\nwages Parliament  has used the words “full wages last drawn”
\nindicating that\t the wages  that were  actually paid and not
\nthe amount that would be payable are required to be paid.\n<\/p>\n
     As regards the powers of the High Court and the Supreme
\nCourt under  Article 226  and 136 of the Constitution it may
\nbe stated  that Section\t 17-B, by  conferring a right on the
\nworkman to  be paid  the amount\t of full wages last drawn of
\nthe Labour  Court, Industrial  Tribunal or National Tribunal
\nin the\tHigh Court  or the Supreme Court which amount is not
\nrefundable or  recoverable in  the event  of the award being
\nset aside,  does not  in any  way preclude the High Court or
\nthe Supreme  Court to  pass a  order directing\tpayment of a
\nhigher amount  to the  workman\tif  such  higher  amount  is
\nconsidered necessary  in the  interest of  justice.  Such  a
\ndirection  would  be  dehors  the  provisions  contained  in
\nSection 17-B  and while\t giving the  direction the Court may
\nalso give  directions regarding\t refund or  recovery of\t the
\nexcess amount in the event of the award being set aside. But
\nwe are\tunable to  agree with  the view\t of the\t Bombay High
\nCourt in Elpro International Ltd. [supr] that in exercise of
\nthe power  under Article  226 and 136 of the Constitution an
\norder can  be passed denying the workman the benefit granted
\nunder Section  17-B. The  conferment of\t such a\t right under
\nSection 17-B  cannot be\t regarded as  a restriction  on\t the
\npowers of  the High Court or the Supreme Court under Article
\n226 and 136 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  present case  by his  order dated September 26,
\n1995 the  learned Single  Judge, while exercising the powers
\nunder  Section\t17-B,  has  directed  payment  of  wages  as
\nrevised, including  the increments,  D.A.,  etc.  which\t are
\ngranted to  all the employee pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth
\nBipartite Settlements.\tThe said  direction of\tthe  learned
\nSingle Judge, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of
\nthe High  Court in  the impugned  judgment, cannot tb upheld
\nsince it  amounts to  directing payment of wages which would
\nhave been  drawn by the respondent if he had been reinstated
\nand not the full wages last drawn by him.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  reasons aforementioned,  the appeal is allowed
\nand the\t impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt dated  February 7,  1996 as  well as  the order  dated
\nSeptember 26,  1995 passed  by the  learned Single judge are
\nset aside, No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997 Author: S.C.Agrawal Bench: S.C. Agrawal, V.N. Khare PETITIONER: DENA BANK Vs. RESPONDENT: KIRITIKUMAR T.PATEL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/11\/1997 BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, V.N. KHARE ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present: Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.C.Agrawal Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.N.Khare P.P.Rao, Sr.Adv., Ramji […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997 - 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\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-17T12:23:19+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-17T12:23:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997\"},\"wordCount\":4608,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997\",\"name\":\"Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-17T12:23:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997 - 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\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-17T12:23:19+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997","datePublished":"1997-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-17T12:23:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997"},"wordCount":4608,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997","name":"Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-17T12:23:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dena-bank-vs-kiritikumar-t-patel-on-19-november-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dena Bank vs Kiritikumar T.Patel on 19 November, 1997"}]},{"@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\/235516","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=235516"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235516\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}