{"id":236357,"date":"2008-08-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-09-28T02:46:18","modified_gmt":"2016-09-27T21:16:18","slug":"bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bhilwara Spinners Ltd vs Workmen on 5 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Bhilwara Spinners Ltd vs Workmen on 5 August, 2008<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\n37\n\n              S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4090\/2005.\n                     Bhilwara Spinners Limited, Bhilwara\n                                    Vs.\n            Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara & Ors.\n\n\n     Date of Order :: 5th August 2008.\n\n           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI\n\n     Mr. Arun Bhansali, for the petitioner.\n     Mr. Sandeep Sarupariya, for the respondents Nos. 2 to 6.\n                                    .....\n\n     BY THE COURT:<\/pre>\n
           Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and<\/p>\n
     having perused the material placed on record, this Court is<\/p>\n
     unable to find any reason to consider any interference in the<\/p>\n
     impugned order dated 30.05.2005 (Annex. 6) as passed by the<\/p>\n
     Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara (‘the<\/p>\n
     Commissioner’); and this Court is clearly of opinion that this<\/p>\n
     writ petition, being totally bereft of substance, deserves to be<\/p>\n
     dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
           The claim for compensation has been made before the<\/p>\n
     Commissioner by the dependents (wife and minor children) of<\/p>\n
     late Pokhar Balai, while joining one Shanker Lal and another<\/p>\n
     Pusa Lal Choudhary as the non-applicants Nos.1 and 2 with<\/p>\n
     the present petitioner as the non-applicant No.3. The<\/p>\n
     claimants have averred in their claim application (Annex.1)<\/p>\n
     that the deceased Pokhar Balai was employed as a tractor
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
driver with the non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 and was supplying<\/p>\n
water at the works of the non-applicant No.3; and have alleged<\/p>\n
that thiswise, the deceased was in employment of all the three<\/p>\n
non-applicants. It has been averred that during the course of<\/p>\n
such employment, the victim met with his untimely end for an<\/p>\n
accident that occurred within the premises of the non-applicant<\/p>\n
No.3 (the present petitioner) on 12.05.2002.<\/p>\n
      While stating the age of the victim at 40 years, and his<\/p>\n
monthly income at Rs. 4,000\/-,      the claimants have sought<\/p>\n
compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,78,340\/- against all the non-<\/p>\n
applicants. The non-applicant No.3 (the present petitioner) has<\/p>\n
filed a reply (Annex.2) to the claim application,      with the<\/p>\n
submissions, inter alia, that the victim was not in its<\/p>\n
employment nor died during the course of any such<\/p>\n
employment. According to the petitioner, it was found during<\/p>\n
investigation, that while water was being supplied from the<\/p>\n
tractor, the deceased sustained fatal injuries while attempting<\/p>\n
to reach the upper branches of a tree with a long iron rod that<\/p>\n
came in contact with 33 KV electricity line.<\/p>\n
       The petitioner also moved an application (Annex.3) on<\/p>\n
06.04.2004 with the submissions that the deceased was not in<\/p>\n
its employment and hence, the claim application was not<\/p>\n
maintainable against it; and prayed that such an objection was<\/p>\n
required to be decided at the first. The application was replied
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
on behalf of the claimants     with the submissions (Annex.4)<\/p>\n
that the application was not maintainable and that the non-<\/p>\n
applicant No.3 was liable as being the principal employer. On<\/p>\n
22.04.2005, the learned Commissioner proceeded to frame<\/p>\n
the following issues (Annex.5) for determination of the<\/p>\n
questions involved in the matter:\n<\/p>\n
      “(1) \u0906\u092f \u092e\u0924\u0915 \u092a \u0916\u0930 \u092c\u0932 \u0908 \u0926 \u0928 \u0915 12-5-02 \u0915
\n      \u0905\u092a \u0930 \u0938\u0916\u092f 1 \u0935 2 \u0915 \u091f\u0915 \u0930 \u092a\u0930 \u0928\u0928\u092f \u091c!\u0924 \u0939
\n      \u0905\u092a \u0930 \u0938\u0916\u092f 3, \u0915 \u0938\u0938\u0930 \u0928 \u092e$ \u092a \u0928% \u0915& \u0938\u092a\u0932 \u0908 \u0915\u0930\u0924
\n      \u0938\u092e\u092f \u0915 \u092f’ \u0915 (\u0930 \u0928 \u0915 \u092f’ \u0915 \u0915 \u0930\u0923 \u0909\u0924\u092a\u0928\u0928 \u0930  – ‘ \u0928
\n      \u0915    \u092a\u0930\u0930\u0923 \u092e\u0938\u0935\u0930\u092a    \u0930\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         – ‘ \u0928 \u0917\u0938\u0924 \u0939    !\u0928     \u0915
\n      \u092a\u0930\u0930\u0923 \u092e\u0938\u0935\u0930\u092a \u0926 \u0928 \u0915 27-5-02 \u0915 \u092e\u0924\u092f- \u0915 \u092a \u092a \u0939-\u0906
\n      \u09393 \u090f\u0935 \u0905\u092a \u0930 \u0938\u0916\u092f 1 \u0935 2 \u092e\u0924\u0915        \u0915 \u0928\u0928\u092f !\u0915
\n      \u0920\u0915 \u0930 \u0935 \u0905\u092a \u0930 \u0938\u0916\u092f 3 \u092e-\u0916\u092f \u0928\u0928\u092f !\u0915 \u0915 \u0930\u092a \u092e$
\n      \u0915\u092e’\u0915 \u0930 \u0915\u0928\u0924 \u092a7\u0928\u0924’ \u0905\u09288. \u0915 \u0905\u0928\u0924\u0930’\u0924 \u092e-\u0906\u0935! \u0935
\n      \u0936 \u0938\u0924% \u0939\u0924- \u0928\u092f\u0924\u0935 8%\u0928 \u09393 ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (2) \u092f\u0926 \u0939 \u0924 \u092e\u0924\u0915 \u0906\u0928;\u0924 \u0905\u092a \u0930 \u0938\u0916\u092f 1, 2
\n      \u0905\u0930\u0935 \u0905\u092a \u0930 \u0938\u0916\u092f 3 \u0938 \u0926\u0915\u0924\u0928 \u092e-\u0906\u0935! \u092c\u092f ! \u0935
\n      \u0936 \u091c\u0938\u0924 \u092a \u092a \u0915\u0930\u0928 \u0915 \u0905\u09288\u0915 \u0930= \u09393 ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (3)     \u0905\u0928\u092f \u0905\u0928-\u0924 \u0937 ?\n\n\n\n      After   framing   of   issues,   yet     another    application\n\n<\/pre>\n
(Annex.6) was moved on behalf of the petitioner with the<\/p>\n
submissions that its earlier application dated 06.04.2004 was<\/p>\n
pending and if the trial on other issues was taken up without<\/p>\n
deciding    on   such   an   aspect,         the   petitioner   would<\/p>\n
unnecessarily be required to participate in the proceedings;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
and it was reiterated that the deceased was not in its<\/p>\n
employment.\n<\/p>\n
                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
          The learned Commissioner has observed in the<\/p>\n
impugned order dated 30.05.2005 (Annex.7) that all the<\/p>\n
questions in controversy would be determined in the final<\/p>\n
judgment and has ordered that the matter be proceeded for<\/p>\n
evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        Seeking to assail the order dated 30.05.2005, it has<\/p>\n
strenuously been contended by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that the question of competence of the claim<\/p>\n
application against the petitioner ought to have been decided<\/p>\n
as a preliminary issue by the learned Commissioner; and,<\/p>\n
while relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
the case of Management of Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd.<\/p>\n
Vs. The Workers & Ors. : AIR 1963 SC 569, learned counsel<\/p>\n
contended that such a question being directly related to the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Commissioner, is required to be decided at<\/p>\n
the initial stage of proceedings.   The submissions remain<\/p>\n
untenable.\n<\/p>\n
        The averments as taken by the claimants in the claim<\/p>\n
application, when read as a whole, make out that according to<\/p>\n
them,    the victim was in employment of all the three non-<\/p>\n
applicants including the present petitioner.   Looking to the<\/p>\n
substance of the allegations and the material available<\/p>\n
available on record, the learned Commissioner has framed the<\/p>\n
issues taking into comprehension all the questions involved in
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
the matter including the question as to whether the non-<\/p>\n
applicant No.3 (the present petitioner) is liable towards<\/p>\n
compensation or not ? The plea as taken by the present<\/p>\n
petitioner, of the victim being not in its employment, remains a<\/p>\n
plea in defence and is obviously subject to the trial and final<\/p>\n
adjudication by the learned Commissioner. Such a plea cannot<\/p>\n
be said to be a plea relating to the jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
Commissioner to deal with the claim for compensation.<\/p>\n
Reference to the decision in Management of Express<\/p>\n
Newspaper (supra) remains entirely inapt wherein the question<\/p>\n
had been about existence of an industrial dispute, a sine qua<\/p>\n
non for the Industrial Tribunal to assume jurisdiction and to<\/p>\n
proceed with adjudication.    In the claim for compensation<\/p>\n
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act as made by the<\/p>\n
claimants, if a particular non-applicant seeks to submit that he<\/p>\n
does not answer to the description of the employer and is not<\/p>\n
liable towards compensation, such a plea does not lead to<\/p>\n
any question on the initial jurisdiction of the Commissioner<\/p>\n
concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned Commissioner has rightly chosen not to<\/p>\n
pronounce anything on the baseless applications as moved<\/p>\n
by the present petitioner; and has rightly posted the matter for<\/p>\n
evidence with the observations that all the questions in<\/p>\n
controversy would be decided at the time of final adjudication.
\n                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
               This writ petition remains totally bereft of substance and<\/p>\n
         is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 3,300\/-.<\/p>\n
               It shall be permissible for the Commissioner concerned<\/p>\n
         to proceed with the matter most expeditiously as it is noticed<\/p>\n
         that the claim for compensation relates to an accident that<\/p>\n
         occurred way back in the year 2002.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.\n<\/p>\n
Mohan\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Bhilwara Spinners Ltd vs Workmen on 5 August, 2008 1 37 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4090\/2005. Bhilwara Spinners Limited, Bhilwara Vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara & Ors. Date of Order :: 5th August 2008. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Arun Bhansali, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Sarupariya, for the […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-236357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nBhilwara Spinners Ltd vs Workmen on 5 August, 2008 - 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\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhilwara Spinners Ltd vs Workmen on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-27T21:16:18+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhilwara Spinners Ltd vs Workmen on 5 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-27T21:16:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":977,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Bhilwara Spinners Ltd vs Workmen on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-27T21:16:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhilwara Spinners Ltd vs Workmen on 5 August, 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":"Bhilwara Spinners Ltd vs Workmen on 5 August, 2008 - 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\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhilwara Spinners Ltd vs Workmen on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-27T21:16:18+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhilwara Spinners Ltd vs Workmen on 5 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-27T21:16:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008"},"wordCount":977,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008","name":"Bhilwara Spinners Ltd vs Workmen on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-27T21:16:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhilwara-spinners-ltd-vs-workmen-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhilwara Spinners Ltd vs Workmen on 5 August, 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\/236357","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=236357"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236357\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}