{"id":241316,"date":"2010-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010"},"modified":"2015-09-20T16:03:05","modified_gmt":"2015-09-20T10:33:05","slug":"udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Udyog vs Rameshchandra on 8 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Udyog vs Rameshchandra on 8 July, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/8691\/1995\t 4\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8691 of 1995\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8709 of 1995\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nUDYOG\nBHARTI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nRAMESHCHANDRA\nK VYAS - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nTUSHAR MEHTA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 08\/07\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.<br \/>\n\tThe issue involved in these petitions is covered by a decision of<br \/>\nthis Court in a cognate matter being S.C.A. No.7220\/1995, which came<br \/>\nto be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 01.04.1999. The said<br \/>\njudgment reads as under;\n<\/p>\n<p>  These three petitions are interconnected and  are<br \/>\n       raising  identical  issue  between  the  parties, who are<br \/>\n      employer  and  its  workmen,  who  were   dismissed   for<br \/>\n      participating in the illegal strike on 14-3-1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.\tThe  petitioners of Special Civil Application No.<br \/>\n      7220\/95 is by the employer and Special Civil  Application<br \/>\n      No.   8302\/95 is cross petition by the workmen as parties<br \/>\n      to the impugned award dated 23-6-1995  in  Ref.    L.C.R.<br \/>\n      No.   1120\/86  to  1124\/86,  1128 to 1149\/86 and 1151\/86.<br \/>\n      These petitions relate to the dismissal of 28 workmen who<br \/>\n      had not participated  in  the  inquiry  pursuant  to  the<br \/>\n      notice  for holding the inquiry on the alleged misconduct<br \/>\n      of participating in the illegal strike.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.\tSpecial Civil Application No.  8113  of  1995  is<br \/>\n      filed  by  the employer against the award dated 9-8-95 in<br \/>\n      Reference L.C.R.  Nos.    1125\/86,  1126\/86  and  1127\/86<br \/>\n      concerning  three workmen who participated in the inquiry<br \/>\n      against the misconduct of participation in illegal strike<br \/>\n      which resulted in their  dismissal  on  14-6-1985.    The<br \/>\n      Labour  Court  in  both  the  respective awards found the<br \/>\n      inquiry  to  be  just  and  proper  and   misconduct   of<br \/>\n      participating in the illegal strike proved.  However, the<br \/>\n      labour  court  found  the  punishment  of dismissal to be<br \/>\n      harsh and has ordered reinstatement of workmen  excluding<br \/>\n      Nirmlaben Shingala  with  10%  back  wages.    While  the<br \/>\n      employer in Special Civil Applications No.   7220\/95  and<br \/>\n      8113\/95  has  challenged  the  order  of reinstatement of<br \/>\n      workmen with 10% back wages.  Whereas  the  employees  in<br \/>\n      Special  Civil  Application No.8392\/96 has challenged the<br \/>\n      denial of back wages to the extent of 90%<\/p>\n<p>      4.\t   Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that<br \/>\n      the disciplinary inquiry has been found to  be  just  and<br \/>\n      fair and misconduct is found to be proved on the material<br \/>\n      which  has  come  on  record  at  Annexure-A  during  the<br \/>\n      inquiry.   It  is  a  managerial   function   to   impose<br \/>\n      punishment  and  it  is  not  for the Industrial Court or<br \/>\n      Tribunal to interfere with it ordinarily.    The  learned<br \/>\n      counsel  for  the  petitioner  has  also  urged  that the<br \/>\n      participation in the illegal strike itself is  sufficient<br \/>\n      to  impose  punishment,  but the fact that the delinquent<br \/>\n      workmen indulged in continuous  strike  for  long  period<br \/>\n      even  after the strike was prohibited by the order of the<br \/>\n      Government  dated  1-6-1985  made  u\/s  10  (3)  of   the<br \/>\n      Industrial Disputes Act which makes it a grave misconduct<br \/>\n      which justifies  dismissal.   Once dismissal is justified<br \/>\n      no interference is called for.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.\t   It  has  been urged on behalf of the workmen that<br \/>\n      merely  participation  in  the  illegal  strike   without<br \/>\n      anything  more  ordinarily did not justify the punishment<br \/>\n      of dismissal.  In the circumstances, no attempt has  been<br \/>\n      made  by  the  employer to take the employees on duty who<br \/>\n      participated in the strike  prior  to  resorting  to  the<br \/>\n      disciplinary action  of  punishment  of  dismissal.   The<br \/>\n      learned counsel for the workmen urged that the denial  of<br \/>\n      back wages to the extent of 90% is too harsh.\n<\/p>\n<p>      6.\t   I    have    carefully   considered   the   rival<br \/>\n      contentions.  There  cannot  be  any  dispute  about  the<br \/>\n      principle.   However,  it  cannot be said that the Labour<br \/>\n      Court  has  no  jurisdiction  to   interfere   with   the<br \/>\n      punishment.   U\/s  11-A  of  the Industrial Disputes Act,<br \/>\n      where an industrial  dispute  relating  to  discharge  or<br \/>\n      dismissal  of  a  workman  has  been referred to a Labour<br \/>\n      Court, Tribunal or  National  Tribunal  for  adjudication<br \/>\n      and,  in  the course of the adjudication proceedings, the<br \/>\n      Labor Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as  the  case<br \/>\n      may  be, is satisfied that that the order of discharge or<br \/>\n      dismissal was not justified, it may, by  its  award,  set<br \/>\n      aside  the  order  of  discharge  or dismissal and direct<br \/>\n      instatement of the workman on such terms and  conditions,<br \/>\n      if  any,  as  it thinks fit, or give such other relief to<br \/>\n      the workman including the award of any lesser  punishment<br \/>\n      in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of<br \/>\n      the case   may   require.     Ordinarily  the  managerial<br \/>\n      authority in the matter of awarding punishment cannot  be<br \/>\n      interfered  with where the domestic inquiry is found just<br \/>\n      and fair and misconduct alleged  is  proved,  unless  the<br \/>\n      same  is  found  to  be disproportionate to guilt proved.<br \/>\n      Where  the  domestic  inquiry  is  found   defective   or<br \/>\n      absolutely  one  sided,  the employer can yet justify the<br \/>\n      order of dismissal, discharge or termination by  adducing<br \/>\n      the material  before  the Labour Court.  What is required<br \/>\n      is to be seen is whether exercise of discretion vested in<br \/>\n      the Tribunal is a judicious or arbitrary one.\n<\/p>\n<p>      7.\t   Ordinarily,  exercise  of  discretion  if  it  is<br \/>\n      judicious  and  on  well settled principles of law is not<br \/>\n      liable to  be  interfered  with  by  judicial  review  in<br \/>\n      exercise of  extra ordinary jurisdiction.  In the present<br \/>\n      case,  all  the  charges  levelled  against  the  workmen<br \/>\n      regarding participation in the illegal strike are proved.<br \/>\n      From the material on record and the averments made in the<br \/>\n      petition  and  absence  of the efforts on the part of the<br \/>\n      employer to persuade the women not to continue  with  the<br \/>\n      strike after the same was prohibited on 1-6-1985 is found<br \/>\n      to  be  missing which has major and relevant factor while<br \/>\n      considering whether the punishment of  dismissal  in  the<br \/>\n      case  of  participation in the illegal strike can be said<br \/>\n      to be justified.  In this connection,  reference  may  be<br \/>\n      made to  the  case  of  Gujarat  Steel  Tubes  Ltd.   Vs.<br \/>\n      Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor, Sabha and  Others,  reported<br \/>\n      in AIR  1980  SC  1896.    The  facts  of which had close<br \/>\n      similarity with the  case  at  hand.    Large  number  of<br \/>\n      workmen  were  dismissed by the Company for participating<br \/>\n      in the illegal strike.  On the matter being referred  for<br \/>\n      adjudication  to  the  Arbitrator  u\/s 10 A, the order of<br \/>\n      punishment was upheld and was not interfered with.   That<br \/>\n      award  of  the  Tribunal  was  challenged before the High<br \/>\n      Court.  The High Court by resorting to the provisions u\/s<br \/>\n      11-A found misconduct of  participation  in  the  illegal<br \/>\n      strike  to be proved but set aside the order of dismissal<br \/>\n      finding it to be too  harsh  and  granted  reinstatement.<br \/>\n      The  judgment of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme<br \/>\n      Court in appeal.  It  was  made  clear  by  quoting  from<br \/>\n      earlier  decision  of  the Court in Crompton Greaves Ltd.<br \/>\n      Vs.  Workmen, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1989 that  it  must<br \/>\n      be  clearly  understood  by  those  who  take  part in an<br \/>\n      illegal strike that thereby they make  themselves  liable<br \/>\n      to be dealt with by their employers.\n<\/p>\n<p>      8.\t   In  the  matter  of justification of dismissal by<br \/>\n      way of punishment for participation in illegal strike the<br \/>\n      Court reaffirmed the principle stated  in  India  General<br \/>\n      Navigation &amp; Rly.  Co.  Ltd.  reported in 1960 SC 219 and<br \/>\n      reiterated  in Oriental Textile Finishing Mills, Amritsar<br \/>\n      Vs.  Labour Court Jullundur AIR 1977 SC 277 that :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       \t   &#8220;Mere  taking  part  in an illegal strike without<br \/>\n              anything further would  not  necessarily  justify<br \/>\n              the  dismissal  of all the workers taking part in<br \/>\n              the strike.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      9.\t   The   Court   also   laid   down   the  ambit  of<br \/>\n      jurisdiction of Labour Court in case no inquiry  is  held<br \/>\n      before dismissing a workman :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t        &#8220;The action taken under the general  law  or  the<br \/>\n              standing  orders,  was  illegal in the absence of<br \/>\n              individualized charge-sheet, proper  hearing  and<br \/>\n              personalized punishment,  if  found guilty.  None<br \/>\n              of these steps having been taken,  the  discharge<br \/>\n              orders were  stillborn.  But the Management could<br \/>\n              as in this case it did, offer  to  make  out  the<br \/>\n              delinquency  of  the employees and the arbitrator<br \/>\n              had, in such  cases,  the  full  jurisdiction  to<br \/>\n              adjudge de novo both guilt and punishment.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      10.\t   In    this    context,    where   misconduct   of<br \/>\n      participation in illegal strike  is  proved  against  the<br \/>\n      concerned  worken,  but while considering that punishment<br \/>\n      of dismissal is too harsh the question of awarding lesser<br \/>\n      punishment arise for consideration.  Ordinary, rule where<br \/>\n      a termination is found to be invalid as void  ab  initio,<br \/>\n      equivalent  to  non  est,  &#8216;reinstatement  with full back<br \/>\n      wages&#8217; is not applicable in such circumstances.  In  such<br \/>\n      circumstances,    Industrial    Court   while   directing<br \/>\n      reinstatement  has  jurisdiction  to  impose   conditions<br \/>\n      attached  thereto  as well as to impose lesser punishment<br \/>\n      in lieu of the punishment.  In such cases, it is not  the<br \/>\n      intention  of  Legislature  to allow the delinquent to go<br \/>\n      unpunished.  It is well recognized where the workmen  are<br \/>\n      not  wholly  blameless  or  the  strike is unjustified or<br \/>\n      illegal the Industrial Court may well slice off a part of<br \/>\n      the back wages.  Extent  of  such  slicing  in  the  very<br \/>\n      nature  of things is in the discretion of the Tribunal to<br \/>\n      be  extended  keeping  in   view   of   the   facts   and<br \/>\n      circumstances  of  each  case,  which  constitute complex<br \/>\n      variables.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      11.\t   Following observations may usefully  be  referred<br \/>\n      to from Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd.  (supra) :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       \t   &#8220;The  Industrial  Court may well slice off a part<br \/>\n              if the workmen are not wholly  blameless  or  the<br \/>\n              strike is  illegal  and  unjustified.    To  what<br \/>\n              extent wages for the long interregnum  should  be<br \/>\n              paid   is,   therefore,   a   variable  dependent<br \/>\n              dependent on a complex of circumstances.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      12.\t   Keeping in  view the aforesaid principle viz.  in<br \/>\n      case an order of dismissal is bad under the  general  law<br \/>\n      for  want  of a fair inquiry or nonadherence to principle<br \/>\n      of natural justice, but delinquency  of  the  workman  is<br \/>\n      established  by  the employer before the adjudicator, the<br \/>\n      adjudicator  becomes   the   final   arbiter   of   whole<br \/>\n      controversy viz.   finding of guilt as well as punishment<br \/>\n      and that mere participation  in  illegal  strike  without<br \/>\n      something  further, they may be liable to be punished but<br \/>\n      dismissal is not ordinarily justified, and that where the<br \/>\n      workmen are not  found  wholly  blameless  the  ratio  of<br \/>\n      reinstatement  with full back wages does not operate as a<br \/>\n      matter of course, but rests in discretion of the Tribunal<br \/>\n      exercising jurisdiction, I am of  the  opinion  that  the<br \/>\n      Labour   Court   has   not   exercised  its  jurisdiction<br \/>\n      injudicious or arbitrarily, in setting aside the order of<br \/>\n      dismissal and awarding only 10% of back wages because  it<br \/>\n      found  the  workmen  to  be  guilty  of  participating in<br \/>\n      illegal strike so as to warrant interference with  it  in<br \/>\n      these petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>      13.\t   While no interference  is  called  for  with  the<br \/>\n      awards  made  under  challenge in three petitions, namely<br \/>\n      reinstatement of the workmen with 10% back wages,  it  is<br \/>\n      directed  that 10% of back wages shall not be paid to the<br \/>\n      workmen immediately but shall  be  subject  to  condition<br \/>\n      stated hereinafter.    It  shall be deposited in separate<br \/>\n      accounts in the name  of  each  of  the  workmen  in  the<br \/>\n      nationalized  or  scheduled  bank  in fixed deposit for a<br \/>\n      period of one year at the first instant and to be renewed<br \/>\n      upto three years.  To any workman on being reinstated the<br \/>\n      amount of back wages shall be  payable  to  him  only  on<br \/>\n      completion  of  three years service on reinstatement with<br \/>\n      effect from rejoining.  On completion of the said  period<br \/>\n      the  amount  shall  be paid to them with accrued interest<br \/>\n      there.   Except  in  case  of  superannuation,  death  or<br \/>\n      termination of service by the employer no amount shall be<br \/>\n      payable  to  reinstated workman if they leave the service<br \/>\n      before expiry  of  three  years.    In   case   of   said<br \/>\n      evantuality  the  amount  of  such  deposit  shall become<br \/>\n      payable to  the  concerned  workman  along  with  accrued<br \/>\n      interest thereon.  Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid<br \/>\n      extent in  three  petitions.    The petitions accordingly<br \/>\n      stands disposed of.  In the circumstances,  there  is  no<br \/>\n      order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>      14.\t   Learned counsel  for  the  workmen  Mrs.    Pahwa<br \/>\n      states  that  a  Civil  Application  in   Special   Civil<br \/>\n      Application  No.7220\/95  has  been filed claiming benefit<br \/>\n      u\/S 17B of the Act.  It is submitted that the  fact  that<br \/>\n      workmen  were not employed after the award is disputed by<br \/>\n      filing reply thereof.  As  a  matter  of  entitlement  to<br \/>\n      claim  benefit u\/s 17B relates to the period during which<br \/>\n      the award as to reinstatement  proceedings  were  pending<br \/>\n      before the Court.  This Civil Application will have to be<br \/>\n      decided independently.    This  Civil  Application may be<br \/>\n      placed for orders on 16-6-1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tHence, these petitions also stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order. Rule is made absolute in terms of the judgment and order passed in S.C.A. No.7220\/1995 dated 01.04.1999. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>[K.\n<\/p>\n<p>S. JHAVERI, J.]\t<\/p>\n<p> Pravin\/* <\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Udyog vs Rameshchandra on 8 July, 2010 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/8691\/1995 4\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8691 of 1995 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8709 of 1995 ========================================================= UDYOG BHARTI &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus RAMESHCHANDRA K [&hellip;]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-241316","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Udyog vs Rameshchandra on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Udyog vs Rameshchandra on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-20T10:33:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Udyog vs Rameshchandra on 8 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-20T10:33:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2009,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Udyog vs Rameshchandra on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-20T10:33:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Udyog vs Rameshchandra on 8 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Udyog vs Rameshchandra on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Udyog vs Rameshchandra on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-20T10:33:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Udyog vs Rameshchandra on 8 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-20T10:33:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010"},"wordCount":2009,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010","name":"Udyog vs Rameshchandra on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-20T10:33:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/udyog-vs-rameshchandra-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Udyog vs Rameshchandra on 8 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241316","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=241316"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241316\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}