{"id":240532,"date":"1962-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962"},"modified":"2019-02-13T16:08:33","modified_gmt":"2019-02-13T10:38:33","slug":"rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962","title":{"rendered":"Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiramoil … vs The Labour Appellate Tribunaland … on 10 December, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiramoil … vs The Labour Appellate Tribunaland … on 10 December, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 567, \t\t 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 845<\/div>\n
Author: M R.<\/div>\n
Bench: Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAI SAHIB RAMDAYAL GHASIRAMOIL MILLS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNALAND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n10\/12\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nKAPUR, J.L.\nSUBBARAO, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR  567\t\t  1963 SCR  Supl. (2) 845\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Dispute-Closure  of the Mill on  the  ground  of\nloss-Workmen  awarded  retrenchment  benefit-Mill   reopened\n-Only some of the former workers re-employed-Wages  reduced-\nReference  made\t to single  member  Tribunal-Another  single\nmember\tTribunal  after his  retirement-No  fresh  reference\nmade-Whether  new Tribunal has jurisdiction  to\t adjudicate-\nConstitution of India, Art. 226-Industrial Disputes Act 1947\n(14  of 1947), ss. 7 (1), 8 (2), 10 (1) (c)-Industrial\tDis-\nputes  Act, 1947, as amended by Industrial Disputes  (Amend-\nment) Act 1953, s. 25 (H).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\tconcern was closed on tile  ground  that  it\nincurred  heavy\t losses.  Thereupon the\t workmen  raised  an\nindustrial dispute and they were awarded retrenchment  bene-\nfits.\tAbout two years later the appellant concern was\t re-\nopened.\t  But only some of the former  werekers\t re-employea\nalong  with  some new recruits.\t The wages were\t lower\tthan\nbefore.\t  The workers put forward certain damands  including\nfor  the demand for absorption of those of the\tworkmen\t who\nwere  not  re-employed when the mill was  reopened  and\t for\npayment\t to them of compensation for unemployment  from\t the\ndate of reopening.  An industrial dispute having arisen\t the\nGovernment  constituted a single Member Tribunal and made  a\nreference of the disputes to that Tribunal.  Thereafter\t the\nMember retired.\t The Government then purporting to act under\ns.  7  (1)  of\tthe Industrial\tDispute\t Act,  1947  and  in\nsupercession  of  the previous\tnotification  constituted  a\nsingle\tMember\tTribunal.  This Tribunal to which  no  fresh\nreference  was made proceeded with the adjudication  of\t the\ndispute.   Apart from the demands already made\tthe  workers\ncontended before the Tribunal that they were entitled to the\nbenefits under s. 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act,  as\namended\t by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment)\t Act,  1953.\nThe   appellant\t  contended  that  the\t Tribunal   had\t  no\njurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute\n846\nand  that s. 25 (H) was not available to the former  workmen\nwho had been retrenched.  The first contention of the  appe.\nllant  was rejected.  Even though the second contention\t was\naccepted the tribunal made an order in favour of the workmen\non  the ground that though they cannot claim  the  statutory\nbenefits  of  s.  25 (H) the  principle\t of  social  justice\nunderying that section entitled them to receive salaries and\nallowances  from  the  date  of\t reopening  the\t mill.\t The\nappellant  preferred an appeal to the  Industrial  Appellate\nTribunal.   On\tthe dismissal of that appeal  the  appellant\nfiled a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay.\t The\nHigh   Court  summarily\t dismissed  that  petition   but   a\ncertificate was granted to appeal to this Court.\nThe  appellant\treitrated  before this Court  the  two\tcon-\ntentions stated above.\nHeld, that sub-s. (1) of s. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act\nempowers  the  Government  to constitute  a  Tribunal.\t But\nmerely constituting a Tribunal for adjudication of  disputes\nis  not enough.\t It has also to act under s. 10 and  make  a\nspecific  reference to it of each dispute for  adjudicition.\nWithout\t such  a  reference the Tribunal does  not  get\t any\njurisdiction to adjudicate upon any dispute.\nThe provisions of s. 25 (H) cannot apply to workmen who\t had\nbeen  retrenched before this section came into\tforce.\t The\nprovision not being retrospective no tribunal has  jurisdic-\ntion on the basis of its own conception of social justice to\napply  it or its underlying \"principle\" to a  dispute  which\narose before the provision came into force.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 593\/1960.
\nAppeal from the order dated October 15, 1956, of the  Bombay
\nHigh Court in special Civil Application No. 2832 of 1956.
\nBishan Narain and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant.
\nThe respondent did not appear.\n<\/p>\n
1962.  December 10.  The judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\n 847<\/span>
\nMUDHOLKAR,  J.-This is an appeal by a certificate  from\t the
\nsummary\t dismissal  by\tthe’ Bombay High  Court\t of  a\twrit
\npetition  under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.\t The
\nrelevant facts are these :\n<\/p>\n
Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiram Oil Mills (hereinafter  referred
\nto  as\tthe Mills) were closed on September 1, 1952  on\t the
\nground\tthat they had sustained heavy ‘losses.\tThe  closure
\nwas  found  to\tbe bona fide and the  workmen  were  awarded
\nretrenchment  benefit.\t The  mills,  however,\treopened  on
\nNovember 14, 1954, though their operations were carried on a
\nreduced\t scale\tfor avoiding further losses.   Some  of\t the
\nretrenched   workmen  were  reemployed\tby  the\t Mills\t but
\nevidently at lower wages than before.  It was said on behalf
\nof  the\t Mills\tthat all the former  workmen  could  not  be
\nabsorbed but it would appear that they had in fact  employed
\nsome  new hands as well.  An industrial dispute having\tbeen
\nraised by the respondent-union because of the non-absorption
\nof   11\t workmen,  the\tState  Government   constituted\t  an
\nIndustrial Tribunal consisting of Mr. Kurian, under s. 7  of
\nthe  Industrial Disputes Act, as it stood on that  date,  on
\nMay 1.3, 1955 and referred the following dispute to him :
\n“Whether the retrenched workmen referred to in the Annexures
\nA,  B and C of the Award of the Industrial Triuunal, in\t the
\nIndustrial dispute between the workmen and employers of\t Rai
\nSahib  Ramdayal\t Ghasiram  Rice,  Ginning  and\tOil   Mills,
\nPeddapally   dated  1.,\t January,  1953\t are  entitled\t for
\nreinstatement\tand  compensation  for\tunemployment   after
\nreopening of the said Mills.”\n<\/p>\n
It  may\t be mentioned that shortly after  the  Tribunal\t was
\nconstituted and reference made to it, Mr. Kurian retired  in
\nconsequence of which the
\n848<\/span>
\nGovernment of Hyderabad made the following  notification  on
\nJune 2, 1955
\n“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub   section (1) of
\nsection 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (XIV of  1947)
\nand  in supersession of the Labour  Department\tNotification
\nNo.  B. 189\/54\/134 dated 15-10-1954 the\t Rajapramukh  hereby
\nconstitutes  an\t Industrial  Tribunal  consisting  of\tShri
\nBhikaji\t Patil\tas its sole member for the  adjudication  of
\nindustrial disputes in accordance with the provisions of the
\nsaid Act, with immediate effect.”\n<\/p>\n
The respondents’ case before the Tribunal was that after the
\nreopening  of  the  Mills  all\tthe  former  employees\twere
\nentitled  to be given preference over others and  were\talso
\nentitled  to re-employment on the same wages as obtained  at
\nthe  date of closure.  This claim was based upon  the  award
\nmade  by the Industrial Tribunal on January 1, 1953  in\t the
\ndispute which arose between the Mills and the respondents in
\nconsequence of the closure of the Mills in September,  1952.
\nPara 24, cl. 6 of the Award on the basis of which this claim
\nwas made by the Union runs thus :\n<\/p>\n
“‘In the event of the factory being reopened within one year
\nfrom  the  date of award becomes enforceable  the  employers
\nwill give first preference to those workmen in Annexures  A,
\nB and C, that is, no workmen will be employed in the factory
\nother  than  those employed at present without\tgiving\tthem
\nfirst  opportunity  for employment and that on terms  as  to
\nbasic  wage  and allowances that were in force on  July\t 29,
\n1952.”\n<\/p>\n
The grievance of the respondents was that only a few of\t the
\nformer workers were re-employed and that too at lower  wages
\nand some new hands had been recruited disregarding the claim
\nof some
\n849<\/span>
\nformer\temployees.   They also claimed the  benefit  of\t the
\nprovisions of s. 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act which
\nwere   added  to  the  Act  by\tthe   Industrial    Disputes
\n(Amendment) Act, 1953.\n<\/p>\n
Several contentions were raised by the appellant before\t the
\nTribunal but we need only refer to those which are now urged
\nbefore us.  One contention was that the Tribunal as it stood
\nconstituted   on  June\t2,  1955  had  no  jurisdiction\t  to
\nadjudicate  upon  the  dispute and the other  was  that\t the
\nprovisions  of s. 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes  Act  as
\namended\t by Act 43 of 1953 were not available to the  former
\nworkmen\t who had been retrenched.  The first contention\t and
\nother contentions to which we have not made any mention were
\nrejected  by  the  Tribunal  but  the  contention  that\t the
\nprovisions of s. 25 (H) were not available to the retrenched
\nworkmen\t was upheld by it.  The Tribunal, however,  made  an
\norder in favour of those workmen in the following terms :
\n“‘Though  the workers cannot claim statutory  benefits\tthey
\ncannot\tbe  denied social justice which\t is  the  underlying
\nprinciple  of  section 25 (H) and the rights that  they\t had
\nobtained  under the previous award of 1952.  I..  therefore,
\norder that the workers from Annexures A, B and C who are not
\ntaken  back in service by the employers be  re-employed\t and
\nthey  should be paid their salaries and allowances from\t the
\ndate of the reopening of the mills, i.e., 14-11-1954.  Their
\nsalaries would be the same as they were in force at the time
\nof the closure of the mills.”\n<\/p>\n
An appeal was preferred by the appellants from the  decision
\nof  the\t Tribunal  before  the\tLabour\tAppellate  Tribunal,
\nBombay.\t  That appeal having been dismissed, the  appellants
\npreferred  a writ petition before the High Court  of  Bombay
\nwhich, as already stated, rejected it in limine.\n<\/p>\n
850<\/span><\/p>\n
It seems to us that the contention of the appellant that the
\nIndustrial   Tribunal  consisting  of  Mr.  Patil   had\t  no
\njurisdiction  to adjudicate upon the dispute is correct\t and
\nmust  be  upheld.   Sub-s.  (1) of s. 7\t as  it\t then  stood
\nempowered  the appropriate Government to constitute  one  or
\nmore Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial
\ndisputes in accordance with the provisions of the Act.\tSuch
\na  Tribunal was to consist of such number of members as\t the
\n_appropriate  Government thought fit.  Subs. (2) of s. 8  of
\nthe  Act, as it then stood, provided that where\t a  Tribunal
\nconsists  of one person only and his services ceased  to  be
\navailable  the\tappropriate Government may  appoint  another
\nindependent  person in his place, and the proceedings  shall
\nbe continued before the person so appointed. That being\t the
\nlegal position, the appropriate thing for the Government  to
\ndo  was\t to take action under sub-s. (2) of s. 8  after\t Mr.
\nKurian’s services ceased to be available.  Instead of  doing
\nthat the Government took action under s. 7 sub-s. (1) of the
\nAct  “‘in  supersession” of its\t previous  notification\t and
\nconstituted  a fresh Industrial Tribunal consisting  of\t Mr.
\nPatil as its sole member.  We need not consider here whether
\nthe  old  Tribunal still continued to exist  and  there\t was
\nmerely\ta  vacancy  therein  and  therefore  there  was\t  no
\noccassion to constitute a fresh Tribunal under sub-s. (1) of
\ns.  7  because’\t having constituted a  fresh  Tribunal,\t the
\nGovernment  failed  to refer the dispute in question  to  it
\nunder  sub-s. (1) (c) of s. 10 of the Act.  Apparently,\t the
\nlaw  advisors  and  the\t Government  thought  that  a\tmere
\nnotification  under  sub-s.  (1)  of s.\t 7  would  meet\t the
\nrequirements  of  law and there was Do necessity to  make  a
\nfresh  notification  under  s.\t10  (1)\t (c)  referring\t the
\nparticular  dispute  for adjudication to the  Tribunal.\t  No
\ndoubt, sub-s. (1) of s. 7 empowers the Government to consti-
\ntute  a\t Tribunal for adjudicating  industrial\tdisputes  in
\naccordance  with  the  provisions of the  Act.\t But  merely
\nconstituting a Tribunal for such a purpose is
\n\t\t\t    851<\/span>
\nnot  enough.   It  has also to act under s. 10\tand  make  a
\nspecific  reference to it of each dispute for  adjudication.
\nWithout\t such  a  reference the Tribunal does  not  get\t any
\njurisdiction to adjudicate upon any dispute.  On this  short
\nground the appeal must be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
We will, however, say a word about the ground upon which the
\nTribunal  thought it fit to give the retrenched workers\t the
\nbenefit\t of  the provisions of s. 25 (H) on  the  ground  of
\nsocial\tjustice.   Wide though the powers of  an  Industrial
\nTribunal are while adjudicating upon industrial disputes, it
\ncannot arrogate to itself powers which the legislature alone
\ncan  confer  or do something which the legislature  has\t not
\npermitted  to  be  done.  Section 25 (H)  provides  for\t re-
\nemployment of retrenched workmen in certain circumstances in
\npreference to newcomer,-.  But Act 43 of 1953 which  enacted
\nthis  provision\t clearly  provides in sub-s.  (2)  of  s.  1
\nthereof’ that “it shall be deemed to have come into force on
\nOctober 24, 1953.” Clearly therefore, the provisions of this
\nsection\t cannot\t apply to workmen who  had  been  retrenched
\nbefore this provision came into force.\tThe legislature\t did
\nnot intend the provisions to come into force before  October
\n24,  1953.  When that is the mandate of the  legislature  no
\nTribuual has jurisdiction on the basis of its own conception
\nof  social justice to ignore it and apply the provisions  or
\nits  underlying “principle” to a dispute which arose  before
\nthe provisions came into force.\n<\/p>\n
For  both these reasons, we allow the appeal and  quash\t the
\naward of the Industrial Tribunal.  There will be no order as
\nto costs as the respondents have not put in an appearance.
\nAppeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
852<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiramoil … vs The Labour Appellate Tribunaland … on 10 December, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 567, 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 845 Author: M R. Bench: Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: RAI SAHIB RAMDAYAL GHASIRAMOIL MILLS Vs. RESPONDENT: THE LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNALAND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/12\/1962 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. […]<\/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-240532","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiramoil ... vs The Labour Appellate Tribunaland ... on 10 December, 1962 - 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\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiramoil ... vs The Labour Appellate Tribunaland ... on 10 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962\" \/>\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=\"1962-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-13T10:38:33+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiramoil … vs The Labour Appellate Tribunaland … on 10 December, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-13T10:38:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962\"},\"wordCount\":1539,\"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\\\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962\",\"name\":\"Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiramoil ... vs The Labour Appellate Tribunaland ... on 10 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-13T10:38:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiramoil … vs The Labour Appellate Tribunaland … on 10 December, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiramoil ... vs The Labour Appellate Tribunaland ... on 10 December, 1962 - 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\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiramoil ... vs The Labour Appellate Tribunaland ... on 10 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-13T10:38:33+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiramoil … vs The Labour Appellate Tribunaland … on 10 December, 1962","datePublished":"1962-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-13T10:38:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962"},"wordCount":1539,"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\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962","name":"Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiramoil ... vs The Labour Appellate Tribunaland ... on 10 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-13T10:38:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-sahib-ramdayal-ghasiramoil-vs-the-labour-appellate-tribunaland-on-10-december-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rai Sahib Ramdayal Ghasiramoil … vs The Labour Appellate Tribunaland … on 10 December, 1962"}]},{"@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\/240532","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=240532"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240532\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240532"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240532"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}