{"id":25058,"date":"2010-07-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-08-08T02:59:38","modified_gmt":"2018-08-07T21:29:38","slug":"national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"National Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
National Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 12\/07\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nW.P.(MD)No.5239 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2010\n\nNational Horticultural Research\nDevelopment Foundation (NHRDF)\n54, Pandiyan Nagar,\nDindigul                                                       ... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.P.Murugesan\n\n2.Presiding Officer,\n   Labour Court,\n   Trichy.                                                     ... Respondents\n\t\n\tWrit Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for\nthe records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in\nI.A.No.457 of 2009 inC.P.No.20 of 2009, dated 05.02.2010 and quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioner                  ...   Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvan\n^For 1st Respondent              ...   Mr.P.MUrugesan\n                                       Party-in-Person\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tHeard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The point for determination in this writ petition is whether in the
\nclaim petition filed by the worker, the management is entitled to engage an
\nAdvocate without the consent of the worker as per section 36(4) of the
\nIndustrial Dispute Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The 1st respondent filed C.P.No.20 of 2009 under section 33(c)(2) of the
\nIndustrial Dispute Act before the Labour Court, Trichy claiming a sum of
\nRs.7,67,205\/- from the petitioner herein.  In that claim petition, he appeared
\nin person and he did not engage any lawyer or trade union office-bearer.  The
\npetitioner herein filed vakalat through counsel and that was objected to by the
\npetitioner and he filed an application in I.A.No.457 of 2009 under section 36(4)
\nof the Industrial Dispute Act stating that he is not giving consent for the
\nappointment of legal practitioner to  the petitioner herein to prosecute the
\nclaim petition filed by him and he is objecting the appointment of the legal-
\npractitioner and that petition has been allowed by the Labour Court.  Aggrieved
\nby the same, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam
\nsubmitted that the petitioner has a right to be represented by a legal-
\npractitioner and that cannot be objected to by the 1st respondent.  In support
\nof his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon
\nthe judgment of this Court reported in 2007(1) LLN 449 in the case of
\nManagement,Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment Division Ltd., Chennai Car
\nPlant, Thruvalloore vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai and
\nothers<\/a>, 1986(II) LLJ 422 [Kerala] in the case of Calicut Co-operative Milk
\nSupply Union vs. Calicut Co-oerative Mil Supply Workers Union and<\/a> in 1992(1)
\nL.L.N.972 AllaHabad, in the case of I.C.I.India Ltd., vs. Labour Court (IV) and
\nanother and in 1991(63) FLR 635. Calcultta in the case of M\/s.Durgapur Cinema
\nand another vs. 9th Industrial Tribunal, Durgapur and others.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
\nfurther submitted this Court has held in the judgment reported in 2007(1) L.L.N.
\n449 that denial of the right to engage a legal-practitioner would result in
\nviolation of Article 21 of Constitution of India and as per Article 39-A of the
\nConstitution of India, free legal-aid is provided and therefore, the 1st
\nrespondent cannot object that the petitioner should not engage a lawyer or
\nlegal-practitioner in that case filed by him.  He further relied upon the
\njudgment reported in 1992(1) LLN 972 (Allahabad), in the case of I.C.I India Ltd
\nvs. Labour Court (IV) and another, wherein the learned Judge held that debarring
\nlawyers appearing before the Labour Court\/Tribunal are wholly arbitrary and
\nultra vires of Arts. 14 and 19(I)(g) of Constitution of India. The learned
\ncounsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the Labour Court has
\nno jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and therefore, the jurisdiction
\nhas to be argued and it can be done only a  legally trained person and
\ntherefore, the petitioner is entitled to have the assistance of a lawyer to
\nprosecute the claim petition filed by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The 1st respondent appeared in person and he also submitted that he is
\nnot a legally trained person and the petitioner has got employees, who are well
\nversed in legal and other matters and the petitioner can employ one of their
\nemployers, representing the case before the court and if the petitioner is
\nallowed to engage a lawyer, they would take technical plea and delay the process
\nand therefore, the petitioner should not be allowed to represent by a Lawyer.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by both the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The scope of section 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act was considered
\nby the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (1976)II L.L.J
\n409(S.C) in the case of Paradip Port Trust v.Their Workmen and the Honourable
\nSupreme Court observed that the consent of the opposite party  is not an idle
\nalternative but a ruling factor under S.36(4). The requirement of the statute,
\ncannot, therefore, be given a go-bye or wished away.  This requirement is to be
\ncomplied with in order to give full effect to the provisions of S.36(4).  Giving
\nor refusing consent is purely, a matter of the will of the party. If the consent
\nis refused, by any one of the parties, the question of leave of the adjudicator,
\nthen does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.As a matter of fact, the Learned Division Bench of this Court in the
\njudgment reported in A.I.R.1954 Mad. 1975 in the case of A.N.Rangasamy v.
\nIndustrial Tribunal held as follows:- “S.36(4) is not open to attack as
\ndiscriminatory under Art.14, on the ground that while a litigant before a Civil
\nCourt has a right to be represented by a Counsel, a party to the proceedings
\nbefore the adjudicatory Tribunal under this Act is denied that right. As it
\nmakes no distinction between employers and employees, there is no
\ndiscrimination. Nor the fact, that the labour unions have persons with legal
\neducation as their chief officers or that in effect the labourers have legal
\nassistance or that it is only the employer had that disadvantage, is a matter
\nwhich can be taken into account for deciding whether the sub-section(4), as it
\nstands, is repugnant to Art.14 of the Constitution.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10.As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to
\nabove has suggested that “it may even be possible that the conditional embargo
\non S.36(4) may be lifted or its rigour considerably reduced by leaving the
\nmatters to the Tribunal’s permission, as has been the case under the English
\nlaw.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11.In the Full Bench judgment of the Honourable High Court reported in
\n[1995] Lab.I.C.2654(2662)(A.P.)(F.B) in the case of A.P. Power Diploma
\nEngineers’ Association vs. A.P. Electricity Board,  the Honourable Court has
\nhighlighted the ‘need to make a re-assessment and reach a conclusion at the
\nLegislative level as to whether in consideration of the totality of
\ncircumstances, S.36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act does not need a change so
\nas to vest either in the Court or the Tribunal the authority to consider in each
\ncase the equities involved and allow, in suitable cases, representation by
\nlawyers of the parties in the same manner as is done by the Enquiring officers
\nin departmental proceedings conducted under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.In the judgment reported in [1964]II L.L.J.614 (Mys) (D.B) in the case
\nof Madras-Bangalore Transport Co. vs. Madras-Bangalore Transport Co. Workers
\nUnion, the Division Bench of Mysore High Court held that the the right to be
\nrepresented by a legal-practitioner is not a part of the fundamental right of
\nfreedom of speech, or the right to hold property or the right to carry on any
\ntrade or business.  Therefore, the limited restriction imposed by S.36, enacted
\nby the Parliament in exercise of its legislative competence as conferred by
\nConstitution, cannot be viewed as an abridgement of any fundamental right.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.In the judgment reported in [1992]I L.L.N.972, in the case of I.C.I
\nIndia Ltd., vs. Labour Court (IV) and another, the Allahabad High Court held
\nsection 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act is unconstitutional and void.  The
\nobservation of the learned Judge in the rendered judgment is worth reproducing,
\nwhich are as follows:- “The argument that lawyers will cause delay is,in my
\nopinion, wholly  frivolous. No doubt the aim of industrial adjudication is to
\nexpeditiously decide an industrial dispute because industrial friction affects
\nnot only the employer and the workmen,but also the public at large,but it is not
\nunderstandable how the appearance of a lawyer will obstruct expeditious
\ndisposal.  On the contrary a lawyer who is trained in labour law can quickly
\nfocus the attention of the Labour Court\/Tribunal to the main points of the
\ndispute, and place the relevant case-law so that the Labour Court can quickly
\ndispose of the dispute.  Hence, debarring of lawyers, even with the proviso that
\na lawyer can appear if the other side gives consent, is in my opinion, wholly
\narbitrary.  As a matter of fact, it is well-known that this arbitrary provision
\nin the two Industrial Disputes Act., viz. Se.36(4) in the Industrial Disputes
\nAct and S.6-I(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, has led to all
\nsorts of subterfuges. Lawyers have had to resort to creation of artificial
\nemployer’s or employees’ organisations of which they claim to be
\nrepresentatives, or appear as officers of the concern. This invites all sorts of
\nobjections and much time of the Labour Court has to be wasted and devoted to
\nfirst deciding this matter before proceeding to dispose of the dispute on
\nmerits.  the provision, to my mind, is clearly arbitrary, and hence violative of
\nArt.14 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The procedure in the Labour Courts, though slightly different from those
\nof the civil court, is still similar to it,and hence this requires study of the
\nprocedure also,which an untrained person does not known.  For example, certain
\nprovisions of the Civil Procedure Code apply to the Labour Courts also, vide
\nS.11(3) of the Central Act.  Similarly many other provisions in the Industrial
\ndisputes Act are similar to the provisions in the Civil Procedure Code. It is,
\ntherefore, wholly unreasonable to expect a layman to present his case properly
\nbefore the Labour Court without assistance of a specialised lawyer.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.In my opinion,, the aforesaid provisions in both the Central and Uttar
\nPradesh Acts are also violative of Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India
\nsince they amount to unreasonable restriction on a lawyer’s right to practise
\nhis profession. A whole class of labour lawyers has sprung up after enforcement
\nof the Industrial disputes Act, and the aforesaid provisions amount to
\nunreasonable restriction on their right to practise.  To say that lawyers raise
\nall sorts of technical objections to delay the disposal of the case, is to my
\nkind, a wholly frivolous objection.  the Presiding Officer of the Labour
\nCourt\/Tribunal can always conduct the proceedings firmly and in such a manner
\nthat no delay is caused, and he can always reject any objection which he finds
\nto be frivolous or hyper-technical and which comes in the way of speedy disposal
\nof the dispute.”\n<\/p>\n
\t14.In the judgment rendered by our High Court in 2007(1) L.L.N 449, in the
\ncase of Management, Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment Division Ltd.,
\nChennai Car Plant, Thiruvalloore vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court,
\nChennai and others<\/a>,  this Court has held that when a worker is represented by a
\nwell trained office-bearer of trade union, the management is also entitled to
\nhave assistance of the lawyer and objection must be raised by the workers at the
\nearliest point of time and they should not raise belatedly. In this case, it is
\nnot disputed that immediately after the petitioner entered appearance before the
\nLabour Court, objection is raised by the respondent by filing application.
\nTherefore, it cannot be stated that the application is filed belatedly. Further,
\nthe respondent is not represented by any trade union office-bearers or legally
\ntrained persons and he appears in person before the Labour Court as well as
\nbefore this Court.  Therefore, it cannot be stated that by refusing the
\nmanagement to engage a lawyer, it violatives Article 42 of the Constitution of
\nIndia and the workers is represented by a legally trained person.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.As observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that the reason for consent
\nof the opposite party is not an idle ruling factor and therefore, unless the
\nsection is amended, the management cannot claim as of right to engage a lawyer,
\nwhen the worker is not represented by any qualified lawyer or legally trained
\ntrade union office-bearers.  Though, the Honourable Allahabad High Court has
\ndeclared the section 36(4) as unconstitutional and void, having regard to the
\njudgment of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in Paradip Port Trust case
\nreferred to above wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has upheld the provision
\nof the Act and only suggested the Government to amend the section, I am not
\ninclined to follow the Allahabad High Court judgment reported in (1992)I
\nL.L.N.972, in the case of I.C.I India Ltd., vs. Labour Court (IV) and another in
\npreference to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Paradip Port Trust
\ncase referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
\nConsequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
To,<\/p>\n
The Presiding Officer,
\nLabour Court,
\nTrichy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court National Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 July, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12\/07\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.5239 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 National Horticultural Research Development Foundation (NHRDF) 54, Pandiyan Nagar, Dindigul … Petitioner Vs. 1.P.Murugesan 2.Presiding Officer, Labour Court, […]<\/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-25058","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNational Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 July, 2010 - 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\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"National Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-07T21:29:38+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\\\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T21:29:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2126,\"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\\\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010\",\"name\":\"National Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T21:29:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 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":"National Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 July, 2010 - 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\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-07T21:29:38+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\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T21:29:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010"},"wordCount":2126,"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\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010","name":"National Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T21:29:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-horticultural-research-vs-p-murugesan-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 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\/25058","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=25058"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25058\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25058"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}