{"id":245010,"date":"2006-01-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006"},"modified":"2017-01-29T02:21:30","modified_gmt":"2017-01-28T20:51:30","slug":"managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"Managing Director vs S.Packiaraj on 4 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Managing Director vs S.Packiaraj on 4 January, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 04\/01\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM             \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.BASHA        \n\nW.A.No.413 of 1998  \n\nManaging Director,\nBrakes India Ltd.,\nPadi, Madras-50.                  .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.S.Packiaraj\n\n2.The Assisant Commissioner  \n  of Labour,\n  Labour (Concilliation) - II,\n  Chennai-108.                   .. Respondents\n\n\n        Writ Appeal filed against the order dated 18.2.1998 passed by the\nlearned single Judge in W.P.No.1908 of 1995.\n\n!For Appellant   : Mr.C.Ramakrishnan for\n                  Mr.S.Vishnu Mohan\n\n^For Respondent-1 : Mr.G.Masilamani, S.C. for\n                  Mr.S.Muthudurai\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
        The  Management of  M\/s.  Brakes  India  Limited  is  the
\nappellant  herein.\n<\/p>\n
 S. Packiaraj, the first respondent herein filed a writ petition
\nchallenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the
\nsecond respondent  herein, approving the action of the Management in
\ndismissing the first respondent.  The writ petition was allowed by the
\nlearned single Judge.  Aggrieved by that,  this writ appeal has been
\nfiled by the Management.\n<\/p>\n
        2. The short facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
        “(a) Mr.Packiaraj, the first respondent herein was an employee of
\nthe appellant Company.  He was charge-sheeted  for having committed
\nthe acts of misconduct by abusing his co-worker Padmanabhan in a filthy language and attacking him with a steel-tumbler on hi
\nwhich caused a cut injury on 28.6.1990. A domestic enquiry was
\ninstituted by the Management.  Ultimately, on the basis of the enquiry report, the order of dismissal was passed by the Manag<\/p>\n
(b) The Management filed an approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the authority, viz
\nAssistant Commissioner of Labour, the second respondent herein.  On 2.8.199
\n1, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour dismissed the approval
\npetition filed by the Management.\n<\/p>\n
(c) Aggrieved by that, the Management filed a writ petition in W.P.
\nNo.13773 of 1991 before this Court.  Upon dismissal of the writ
\npetition, the Management filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.835 of 1993 on the
\nfile of this Court before the Division Bench.  Ultimately, on 27.10.199
\n4, the First Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal and
\nremanded the matter again to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour to
\nconsider the case afresh and pass order after giving opportunity to both
\nparties to adduce additional evidence.  The Division Bench further
\ndirected that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has to decide the
\napproval petition on or before 15.1.1995.\n<\/p>\n
(d) Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour conducted an
\nenquiry and allowed the parties to adduce additional evidence by the
\nManagement as well as the rebuttal evidence by the workman.  After
\nenquiry, final orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner of
\nLabour on 14.1.1995 granting approval for the action of the Management
\ndismissing the workman from service for his misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
        (e) Challenging the same, the workman filed writ petition in W.P.No.1908  of 1995.  After hearing the counsel for the
\nleaned single Judge by his order dated 18.2.1998 allowed the writ petition setting aside the approval granted by the Assistan
\nLabour and directed the Management to reinstate the workman in
\nservice with all back wages and all other consequential benefits.  Feeling
\naggrieved by this order, the Management has challenged the same in
\nthis writ appeal.”\n<\/p>\n
        3. Mr. C.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the
\nappellant, would cite a number of authorities in order to point out that
\nthe learned single Judge ought not to have interfered  with the order
\nof granting approval on finding that there is a prima facie case, as
\nit would amount to exceeding the jurisdiction vested in him  under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution.   The authorities are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        1) U.P. STATE SPINNING CO. LTD.    v.   R.S.   PANDEY<\/a> (2005(8)       S.C.C.264);\n<\/p>\n
        2) U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPN. LTD.   v.   RAJYA SETU NIGAM S.\n<\/p>\n
KARAMCHARI SANGH (2004(4) S.C.C.268);\n<\/p>\n
        3)  NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. AND ANOTHER  v.  P.K. KHANNA (JT<\/a>      2005 (8)  S.C.125);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4) MARTIN BURN, LTD.  v.  BANERJEE<\/a> (1958 I L.L.J. 247);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        5) BANGALORE   WOOLLEN,   COTTON   AND SILK MILLS CO.  v.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
DASAPPA (1960 II L.L.J.39);\n<\/p>\n
        6) SRI RANGA VILAS G.S. AND WVG. MILLS   v.   I.T. (1959 II L.L.J.78\n<\/p>\n
6);\n<\/p>\n
        4. On the other hand, Mr. G.Masilamani, the learned senior counsel
\nappearing for the first respondent, would submit that the order of
\nthe learned single Judge setting aside the order of approval by the
\nAssistant Commissioner of Labour is perfectly valid in law, since the
\norder by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour would suffer from
\ninfirmity, as the proper opportunity was not given to the workman, despite
\nthe direction given by the First Bench,  He would cite the following
\nauthorities:\n<\/p>\n
        1) THE STATE OF MADRAS   v.  KANDASAMY (1972 II L.L.J.374);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        2) R.K.KINDRA  v.  DELHI ADMINISTRATION<\/a> ( 1984 II L.L.J.517);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        3) CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA   v.   PRAKASH CHAND JAIN  (A.I.R.1969       S.C.983)<\/a>;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4) KULDEEP SINGH     v.    COMMISSIONER OF POLICE<\/a>  (1999(2)    \nS.C.C.10);\n\n        5) BHAGAT SINGH      v.    THE STATE OF H.P. (1983 (2) S.C.C.442).\n\n<\/pre>\n
        5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the rival content<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        6. At the outset, it would be appropriate to refer to settled law
\nlaid down by the Supreme Court dealing with the powers of the High
\nCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution, while considering the
\norders passed by the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act in
\nlabour matters.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        7. In U.P.STATE SPINNING CO. LTD.   v.  R.S. PANDEY<\/a> (2005(8) S.C.C.2\n<\/p>\n
64),  the Supreme Court would hold as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “The scope of judicial review under Art.226 in labour matters is
\nvery limited.  Writ petition under Art.226 should not be entertained
\nwhen the statutory remedy is available under ID Act 1947 unless
\nexceptional circumstances are made out.”\n<\/p>\n
        8. In  U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPN. LTD.   v.   RAJYA SETU NIGAM S.
\nKARAMCHARI SANGH<\/a> (2004(4) S.C.C.268), the Apex Court would make the
\nfollowing observation:\n<\/p>\n
        “The awards passed by the authorities constituted under the I.D.
\nAct are no doubt amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Courts under
\nArt.226 as also to the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.32 but
\nthey are extraordinary remedies subject to several self-imposed
\nconstraints.  It is, therefore, always in the interest of the workmen that
\ndisputes concerning them are adjudicated in the forums created by the
\nAct and not in a civil court.  That is the entire policy underlying
\nthe vast array of enactments concerning workmen.  This legislative
\npolicy and intendment should necessarily weigh with the courts in
\ninterpreting these enactments and the disputes arising under them. ? ? ? It is an established practice that the extraordinary
\nquestions of fact. ”\n<\/p>\n
        9. In KULDEEP SINGH  v.  COMMISSIONER OF POLICE<\/a> (1999(2) S.C.C.10), the Supreme Court would make the following observ
\n        “Only when the finding of the Enquiry Officer\/Tribunal is perverse, the High Court can interfere.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        10. In R.K.KINDRA  v.  DELHI ADMINISTRATION<\/a> ( 1984 II L.L.J.517),
\nit is held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “In the absence of evidence to prove the charges, the finding of
\nthe Enquiry Officer against the workman can be disturbed and interfered with by the High Court under Article 226.”\n<\/p>\n
        11. In CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA   v.   PRAKASH CHAND JAIN  (A.I.R.1969 S.C.983),<\/a> it is observed thus:
\n        “If the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse, the High Court
\ncan interfere under Article 226.”\n<\/p>\n
        12. The crux of  the decisions could be given in a nutshell which
\nis as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “The jurisdiction under Article 226 is an extraordinary remedy
\nsubject to several self-imposed constraints.  It is an established
\npractice that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226  should have refused to do so where there are disputed questio
\ncan interfere under Article 226.”\n<\/p>\n
        13. In the light of the above legal situation, let us now go into
\nthe merits of the matter to find out whether the findings given by the learned single Judge for interfering with the order pa
\nAssistant Commissioner of Labour granting approval for the action of
\nthe Management are valid or not.\n<\/p>\n
        14. While dealing with the said  question, let us now give the gist of the findings given by the Assistant Commission
\n        “From the records available, it is found that the Management’s
\naction is in consonance with the Standing Order.  He was given due
\nopportunity by the Management to defend the case during the enquiry.  He
\ncross-examined the witnesses produced by the Management.  The workman
\nwas paid one month’s wages during the course of enquiry as per the
\nStanding Order.  After the action taken, the Management within the
\nstipulated time applied to the authority for granting approval for the
\naction. The jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour while
\nentertaining the approval petition under Section 33(2) of the I.D. Act is very limited.  All that the authority has to consid
\na prima facie case  has been made out for granting approval.  The
\nauthority does not sit as a court of appeal.  As per the direction of
\nthe Division Bench in the writ appeal, opportunity for adducing
\nadditional evidence and rebuttal evidence was afforded to the parties
\nconcerned.  Accordingly, the Management produced two witnesses and defence
\nproduced two rebuttal witnesses.  They were examined in chief and
\ncross. Out of the three defence witnesses mentioned in the memo, two
\nwitnesses were produced and enquiry was concluded on 13.1.1995.  The
\nDivision Bench gave a time limit only up to 15.1.1995.  Accordingly, the order was pronounced in time.  The evidence of M.W.1
\nand caused a cut injury.  This has been corroborated by the evidence
\nof two other witnesses.  There is a medical evidence also.  The
\ndefence witness Dr.Rajasekaran in his rebuttal evidence explained the
\nnature of the out-patient chit Ex.M15.  In cross-examination, he stated
\nthat he never worked as  a Casualty Medical Officer. As such, he is
\nalien to the issue and totally unconnected with the Management.  In the light of the evidence adduced by the Management, it i
\nthere exists a prima facie case for grant of approval.”\n<\/p>\n
        15. However, the learned single Judge, while allowing the writ
\npetition, set aside the said order of approval for the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n
        (1) The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour
\ngranting approval to the action of the Management in dismissing the workman is contrary to the directions given by the Divisi
\norder dated 27-10-1994 in W.A. No.835 of 1993 as the workman was not
\ngiven opportunity to produce the defence witness.\n<\/p>\n
                (2) Despite the directions of the Division Bench, the trial
\nauthority, viz., Assistant Commissioner of Labour did not go into the
\nmerits of the case by analysing the evidence in complete details.\n<\/p>\n
                (3) Though the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was very
\nparticular in observing the time-frame fixed by the Division Bench, but
\nfailed to follow the other directions given by the Division Bench by not
\nproviding opportunity to the workman to adduce additional evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                (4) The additional document, Ex.M-38 and its’ authenticity was
\ndoubtful as the same was produced by the Management after four and a
\nhalf years without any proper explanation for the delay.\n<\/p>\n
                (5) As per Ex.M-5 and Ex.M-22, the injury sustained by Padmanabhan (MW-1) was stated as ‘fall injury’.  This
\n                (6) The impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of
\nLabour  solely on the basis of Ex.M-38 is not on the basis of sufficient evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                (7) No second show cause notice was issued to the workman.\n<\/p>\n
         16. On going through the entire records and also the
\njudgment of the learned single Judge, it is clear that the learned single
\nJudge has exceeded his jurisdiction vested in him under Article 266 of the Constitution.  On going through the facts, it is s
\nworkman abused MW-1 in a filthy language and threw a water tumbler on
\nhis forehead, which resulted in causing a bleeding cut injury on his
\nforehead.  Medical evidence is available on record to show that there was a cut injury on the forehead of  MW-1.  The Divisio
\nwhile setting aside the order of the earlier Assistant Commissioner of
\nLabour refusing to grant approval, directed the trial authority to
\nallow the Management to adduce additional evidence and also the workman
\nto adduce rebuttal evidence in order to find out the existence of a
\nprima facie for grant of approval to the Management’s action of
\ndismissing the workman from service.  Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner
\nof Labour is expected to go through the entire material and evidence
\navailable on record, which was adduced by both parties in order to
\nfind out the existence of a prima facie case for grant of approval.  In other words, the scope of enquiry under Section 33(2)
\nfind out the existence of a prima facie case for grant of approval.\n<\/p>\n
        17. There are enough material and evidence on record to show that the workman picked up a quarrel with MW-1, abused h
\nthrowing a water tumbler.  The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, on
\nconsideration of the entire materials available on record and the
\nevidence adduced by both the parties, rendered a finding of fact that there
\nexits a prima facie case for grant of approval to the Management’s
\naction of dismissing the workman from service.  Existence of a prima
\nfacie case does not mean the case proved to the hilt, but the case
\nwhich can be said to be established with the evidence which has let in
\nsupport of the same were believed.  Further, in matter like this, where the jurisdiction of the trial authority under Section
\nthe I.D. Act is limited, adequacy of evidence or its sufficiency or
\nsatisfactory character would be irrelevant.  On the other hand, as
\nstated above, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has rendered a finding
\nof fact, on the basis of materials available before it, that there
\nwas a prima facie case for granting approval.\n<\/p>\n
        18. Unfortunately, learned single Judge, unmindful of the settled
\nlegal position and the findings and the reasoning given by the
\nAssistant Commissioner of Labour, has straightaway gone into the oral and
\ndocumentary evidence and embarked upon the appreciation of evidence
\nadduced by the parties and observed that the evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
Management is unbelievable.  The approach of the learned single Judge is wholly erroneous and beyond the scope of his jurisdi
\nArticle 226.  It is trite law that under Article 226, High Court cannot
\ngo into the disputed questions of fact.\n<\/p>\n
        19. The other reasoning given by the learned single Judge for
\nupsetting the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour is
\ndenial of opportunity to the workman to examine his witness
\nThirumavazhavan.  On the perusal of the records, we find that the workman filed a
\npetition on 12-1-1995 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for permission to produce three witnesses to tender evidenc
\n and undertook to produce all of them on the said date.  Permission
\nwas granted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour.  The workman,
\nhowever, produced only two witnesses and failed to produce the third
\nwitness Thirumavazhavan.  The workman requested the Assistant
\nCommissioner of Labour to summon the said witness by issue of summons.  The
\nAssistant Commissioner of Labour, keeping in mind the time-frame fixed
\nby the Division Bench for passing orders going to expire on 15-1-1995 and also of the fact that he has no powers under the Ac
\nsummons, refused the request and proceeded to pass orders.  The
\nAssistant Commissioner of Labour noticing the conduct of the workman and his counsel observed that there is a willful and wan
\ndefence to protract the proceedings. In these circumstances, the
\nobservation of the learned single Judge that the workman was denied the
\nopportunity to produce the defence witness is wrong.\n<\/p>\n
        20. That apart, the learned single Judge disbelieved the evidence
\nof Additional Management Witness, who happened to be the eye-witness.
\nThe Assistant Commissioner of Labour, as indicated above, has to find out only prima face case and the said authority need no
\nlearned single Judge erroneously concluded that the oral testimony of
\nthis witness should  not have been accepted by the Assistant
\nCommissioner of Labour.  By this, the disputed question of fact has been
\ndecided by the learned single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution. Admittedly, there is no finding by the learned sin
\norder are perverse.\n<\/p>\n
        21. One other reason the learned single Judge has pointed out is
\nthat second show cause notice regarding punishment was not given. The
\nauthority concerned should go by the Standing Order of the Company
\nalone.  Approval cannot be refused merely on the basis of the fact that
\nno second show cause was given.  Admittedly, there is no provision
\nfor the second show cause notice in the Standing Order.\n<\/p>\n
        22. Thus,  in view of the discussion made above, we cannot hold
\nthat the findings given by the learned single Judge disturbing the
\nfinding of fact rendered by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the
\nsecond respondent herein, with reference to the prima facie case for
\ngrant of approval, are valid.  Hence, the order of the learned single
\nJudge is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
mam
\nCopy to:\n<\/p>\n
The Assisant Commissioner of Labour,
\nLabour (Concilliation) – II,
\nChennai-108.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Managing Director vs S.Packiaraj on 4 January, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 04\/01\/2006 Coram THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM and THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.BASHA W.A.No.413 of 1998 Managing Director, Brakes India Ltd., Padi, Madras-50. .. Appellant -Vs- 1.S.Packiaraj 2.The Assisant Commissioner of Labour, Labour (Concilliation) – […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-245010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManaging Director vs S.Packiaraj on 4 January, 2006 - 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\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Managing Director vs S.Packiaraj on 4 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-28T20:51:30+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Managing Director vs S.Packiaraj on 4 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-28T20:51:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2694,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006\",\"name\":\"Managing Director vs S.Packiaraj on 4 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-28T20:51:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Managing Director vs S.Packiaraj on 4 January, 2006\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Managing Director vs S.Packiaraj on 4 January, 2006 - 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\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Managing Director vs S.Packiaraj on 4 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-28T20:51:30+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Managing Director vs S.Packiaraj on 4 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-28T20:51:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006"},"wordCount":2694,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006","name":"Managing Director vs S.Packiaraj on 4 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-28T20:51:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-s-packiaraj-on-4-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Managing Director vs S.Packiaraj on 4 January, 2006"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/245010","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=245010"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245010\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}