{"id":239772,"date":"2009-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009"},"modified":"2019-04-05T08:42:18","modified_gmt":"2019-04-05T03:12:18","slug":"the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Secretary vs M\/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd on 11 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Secretary vs M\/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd on 11 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 7296 of 2009(F)\n\n\n1. THE SECRETARY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M\/S.HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD.,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE LABOUR COURT,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :11\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                        S. SIRI JAGAN, J.\n                ------------------------------------\n                   W.P.(C)No.7296 OF 2009\n              ----------------------------------------\n              Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     The petitioner is a Union of workers of the Tatapuram Union<\/p>\n
of the 1st respondent Company which is the successor-in-interest<\/p>\n
of the erstwhile Tata Oil Mills Limited. The erstwhile Company<\/p>\n
had two units, one at Ernakulam and another at Calicut. The<\/p>\n
company decided to suspend the activities of the Calicut Unit.<\/p>\n
Therefore, 53 workmen of the Calicut Unit were transferred to<\/p>\n
Tatapuram Unit as per a settlement entered into between the<\/p>\n
workers and the management. The workers of Tatapuram unit<\/p>\n
represented by the petitioner Union raised a dispute, which<\/p>\n
resulted in a reference of the dispute to the Labour Court,<\/p>\n
Ernakulam, which was adjudicated as I.D.No.20\/2005.           The<\/p>\n
questions referred for adjudication were:<\/p>\n
              “1. whether the transfer of 53 employees from
\n       Hindustan Lever Limited, Kozhikode to Tatapuram
\n       factory is legal and Justifiable”? 2. Whether the
\n       transfer of employees adversely affect the existing
\n       conditions of service and the long term settlement of
\n       the workmen at Tatapuram? 3. If so, the reliefs
\n       entitled to the workmen”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(c)No.7296\/09                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
The Labour Court after taking evidnece came to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that transfer of the workmen from Calicut has not affected the<\/p>\n
existing service conditions of the workers of Tatapuram unit<\/p>\n
and it cannot be found that the transfer of the 53 workmen<\/p>\n
from Calicut unit to Tatapuram unit is illegal and unjustifiable.<\/p>\n
On the basis of that finding, the workers were ednied any<\/p>\n
relief. Ext.P4 is the award passed by the Labour Court in that<\/p>\n
I.D. The petitioner is challenging that award. The petitioner’s<\/p>\n
contention mainly is regarding the validity of the findings of<\/p>\n
fact entered into by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
      3.    From the award itself, I find that the decision was<\/p>\n
taken by the Labour Court on the basis of admissions made by<\/p>\n
the witness of the petitioner himself. The discussion of the<\/p>\n
evidence is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “The   Point: It is the common case that
\n          originally the management company, Tata Oil Mills
\n          Company Limited had two units in Kerala, one at
\n          Tatapuram in Ernakulam and the other at Calicut and
\n          later the Tata Oil Mills company was amalgamated
\n          with Hindustan Lever Limited. It is not disputed that
\n          the Tata Oil Mills Company Limited at Calicut and
\n          Ernakulam were having separate staff and the service<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.7296\/09                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
          conditions of the employees in Tatapuram were
\n          decided on the basis of agreement subsisting up to
\n          2006 and the service conditions of the Calicut unit
\n          was   governed    by   settlement   dated  15.1.2002.
\n          Subsequently     by   settlement   dated   8.12.2003,
\n          management introduced Voluntary retirement scheme
\n          in the Calicut unit and out of the 177 workmen in the
\n          unit, 124 workers had opted for V.R.S. and remaining
\n          53 workmen had exercised the option of transfer to
\n          the Tatapuram unit of the company. As per the terms
\n          of the settlement dated 8.12.2003, these 53
\n          workmen of the Calicut unit were transferred to the
\n          Tatapuram unit as the activity of the Calicut unit was
\n          suspended. The claimants here in are the workmen of
\n          the Tatapuram unit. They allege that the transfer of
\n          the 53 workmen from the Calicut unit to the
\n          Tatapuram unit is without any authority and is
\n          detrimental to the interest of the existing workmen
\n          at Tatapuram.      According to them, the service
\n          conditions of the employees in the Tatapuram, which
\n          was on the basis of the agreement subsisting up to
\n          2006, the wages were linked with productivity and by
\n          the transfer of the 53 workmen from Calicut unit to
\n          Tatapuram, no new production unit as agreed by the
\n          management before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala
\n          in Writ Petition 39585\/03 was started and that the
\n          transfer of these 53 workmen is detrimental to the
\n          interest of the workmen at Tatapuram unit. But the
\n          management would contend that the transfer of
\n          workers to Tatapuram will not affect the claim for
\n          incentive of the existing workers and new laundry
\n          soap line was started in Tatapuram factory to engage
\n          the 53 workmen who had opted for transfer from
\n          Calicut unit to Tatapuram unit. MW1 representing the<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.7296\/09                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
          management had stated that when the Calicut unit
\n          stopped functioning, only 501 bar soaps were
\n          manufactured there in and at Tatapuram after the
\n          transfer of the employees, manufacturing of 501 bar
\n          soap has been started. He has stated that in the
\n          appointment order there is a clause regarding the
\n          transfer as a condition of service. Ext.M1 and M2 are
\n          the copies of the appointment order under which it is
\n          provided that the workers should be prepared to
\n          work anywhere India without claiming any extra
\n          remuneration for transfer. MW1 had stated that the
\n          sale of 501 bar soap was decreased and that resulted
\n          in the closure of the unit at Calicut. During the cross
\n          examination, MW1 had stated that there is a
\n          separate line of laundry for the workers of Calicut at
\n          Tatauram unit and the transfer of the workers from
\n          Calict unit was under agreement of 2002.       Though
\n          WW1, the worker was examined on the side of the
\n          workers, he has not stated, how the workers at
\n          Tatapuram are affected by the transfer of the
\n          workers from Calicut unit to Tatapuram unit. During
\n          the chief examination, he had admitted that at
\n          Tatapuram unit also, the production has been reduced
\n          and no new items are now manufacturing. During the
\n          cross examination, WW1 had admitted that it is
\n          known to WW1 that the functioning of the Calicut
\n          unit has been stopped and that these workers are
\n          transferred to Tatapuram unit.        During the cross
\n          examination, he has also admitted that at present out
\n          of these 53 transferred workers 42 had gone out
\n          under voluntary retirement scheme.        He has also
\n          admitted that the works are allotted to the
\n          transferred employees only after giving preference
\n          to the workers at Tatapuram.          He has further<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.7296\/09                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
          admitted that the management has authority to
\n          transfer. He could not answer when it was suggested
\n          that the management has authority to transfer its
\n          workers being one of the service conditions. In the
\n          appointment order itself, it is specifically provided
\n          that the employees have to work anywhere in India
\n          without claiming any extra remuneration for transfer.
\n          Evidently it is due to the non functioning of the unit
\n          at Calicut the workers had opted for transfer to
\n          Tatapuram unit and that the management was
\n          compelled to transfer these 53 workmen from Calicut
\n          unit to Tatapuram unit and the management is giving
\n          preference to the Tatapuram employees while
\n          providing work and the management has started a
\n          separate laundry line for the workers transferred.
\n          Hence transfer of workers from Calicut unit has not
\n          affected the existing service condition of workers of
\n          Tatapuram unit and it cannot be found that the
\n          transfer of the 53 workmen from Calicut unit to
\n          Tatapuram unit is illegal and unjustifiable. On the
\n          basis of this finding, the workers are not entitled to
\n          get any relief.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                In the result, an award is passed holding that
\n          the transfer of 53 employees from Hindustan Lever
\n          Limited, Kozhikode is legal and justifiable and the
\n          transfer of these employees will not adversely affect
\n          the service conditions of the workmen at Tatapuram
\n          factory and that they are not entitled to get any
\n          relief. The award will take effect after one month
\n          from the date of pronouncement in the open court”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       (underlining supplied)<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.7296\/09                6<\/span><\/p>\n
      After considering the award, I am satisfied that there is<\/p>\n
absolutely nothing perverse in the findings of fact entered into<\/p>\n
by the Labour Court. The findings are based on the evidence<\/p>\n
on record and the Labour Court has given very cogent<\/p>\n
reasons for the conclusions arrived at on the basis of evidence.<\/p>\n
In the absence of any perversity in those findings I would not<\/p>\n
be justified in interfering with the award in exercise of my<\/p>\n
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of<\/p>\n
India.\n<\/p>\n
      In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in<\/p>\n
this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                         S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
Acd<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)No.7296\/09    7<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Secretary vs M\/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd on 11 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 7296 of 2009(F) 1. THE SECRETARY, … Petitioner Vs 1. M\/S.HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD., … Respondent 2. THE LABOUR COURT, For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-239772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Secretary vs M\/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd on 11 March, 2009 - 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-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Secretary vs M\/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-05T03:12:18+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=\"7 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-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Secretary vs M\\\/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd on 11 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-05T03:12:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1336,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009\",\"name\":\"The Secretary vs M\\\/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-05T03:12:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Secretary vs M\\\/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd on 11 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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 Secretary vs M\/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd on 11 March, 2009 - 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-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Secretary vs M\/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-05T03:12:18+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Secretary vs M\/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd on 11 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-05T03:12:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009"},"wordCount":1336,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009","name":"The Secretary vs M\/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-05T03:12:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-ms-hindustan-lever-ltd-on-11-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Secretary vs M\/S.Hindustan Lever Ltd on 11 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/239772","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=239772"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239772\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}