{"id":25142,"date":"2011-11-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011"},"modified":"2016-05-27T17:08:39","modified_gmt":"2016-05-27T11:38:39","slug":"s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"S vs Blue on 8 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
S vs Blue on 8 November, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: V. M. Jhaveri,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/1549\/2011\t 8\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 1549 of 2011\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 3083 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI<\/a>\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nS\nKALYANKRISHNAN - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nBLUE\nSTAR LTD - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nNILESH M SHAH for\nAppellant(s) : 1,MR MAYANK DESAI for Appellant(s) : 1, \nNone for\nRespondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \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 V. M. SAHAI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\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<\/a>\n: 08\/11\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)<\/p>\n
1.\tHeard
\nMr. Nilesh M. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellant at
\nlength.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nappellant herein has challenged the judgment and order dated
\n18.08.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
\nApplication No. 3083 of 2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has
\nconfirmed the award dated 20.06.2009 passed by Presiding Officer,
\nLabour Court, Vadodara dismissing the reference.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Nilesh M. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellant
\nsubmitted that the appellant very well falls within the meaning of
\nworkman as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.  He
\nsubmitted that in the given facts and circumstances of the case,
\nnotwithstanding the nomenclature or the quantum of wages as the
\nappellant did not have any supervisory, managerial or administrative
\npowers, he does not fall within the definition of workman and any
\nview contrary is misdirected in facts and law as whether the
\nappellant is a workman or not is to be decided on the basis of the
\nnature of his duties.  In support of the said submission Mr. Shah has
\nrelied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of National
\nEngineering Industries Ltd. vs. Shri Kishan Bhageria and Others<\/a>
\nreported in AIR 1988 SC 329.\n<\/p>\n
3.1\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Shah further submitted that the respondent management has failed to
\nprove that the appellant had any supervisory, managerial or
\nadministrative powers.  He submitted that it is settled position of
\nlaw that supervision necessarily involves a direction and control and
\nthat nowhere it has been proved that apart from few things that the
\nappellant might have incidentally carried out for or on behalf of his
\nsuperiors, he had any permanent powers or direction, control and
\nsuperintendence. In this regard Mr. Shah has relied upon a decision
\nof the Apex Court in the case of Anand Regional Coop Oil
\nSeedsgrowers’ Union Ltd. vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah<\/a> reported
\nin 2006(6) SCC 548 and submitted that in the said case even the
\ninternal auditor of the company was termed as a workman under the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
3.2\tFurther,
\nrelying upon another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anoop
\nSharma vs. Public Health Division,  Haryana<\/a> reported in 2010(5) SCC
\n497 Mr. Shah submitted that the appellant is very well within the
\nmeaning of definition of workman under the Act.  He submitted that
\nthe courts below erred in passing the impugned orders and the same
\ndeserve to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tBefore
\nproceeding with the matter, it is relevant to discuss the facts which
\nemerge from the records.  The appellant joined the services of the
\nrespondent establishment as an Account Assistant in the year 1975 and
\ngradually was promoted to level M5.  The services of the appellant as
\nper the appellant were terminated orally on 17.06.1997.    A memo
\ndated 26.06.1997 was issued to the appellant confirming this very
\nfact of his termination and also confirming that the appellant was on
\nthree months’ notice at the end of which his services would come to
\nan end on 17.09.1997.\n<\/p>\n
4.1\tThe
\nappellant vide letter dated 17.06.1997 conveyed his resignation from
\nservice.  However, the appellant vide letter dated 24.07.1997 denied
\nall the allegations against him and requested that he may be covered
\nunder the voluntary retirement scheme but the same was not responded
\nto.  The appellant thereafter withdrew the resignation letter earlier
\nwritten vide letter dated 21.08.1997.  The appellant received another
\nletter dated 10.09.1997 from the establishment stating that he was
\ngiven three month’s salary in lieu of three month’s termination
\nnotice and that he is being relieved.  The appellant was relieved on
\n11.09.1997 with three months’ wages in lieu of the notice.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tWe
\nhave perused the award passed by the labour court as well as the
\njudgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge.  \tIn the case
\nof National Engineering Industries Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court in
\npara 7 has held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“In
\nP. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration & Ors., [1983] 3 S.C.R. 949
\nthe question whether a person was performing supervisory or
\nmanagerial work was the question of fact to be decided bearing in
\nmind the correct principle. The principle therefore is, one must look
\ninto the main work and that must be found out from the main duties. A
\nsupervisor was one who could bind the company to take some kind of
\ndecision on behalf of the company. One who was reporting merely as to
\nthe affairs of the company and making assessment for the purpose of
\nreporting was not a supervisor. See in this connection Black’s Law
\nDictionary, Special Deluxe, Fifth Edition. At page 1290, “Supervisor”
\nhas been described, inter alia, as follows: “In a broad sense,
\none having authority over others, to superintend and direct.\n<\/p>\n
The
\nterm ‘supervisor’ means any individual having authority, in the
\ninterest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off,
\nrecall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other
\nemployees, or responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their
\ngrievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection
\nwith the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely
\nroutine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent
\njudgment.”\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn
\nthe present case, from the documents on record it is amply clear that
\nthe appellant was working at M-5 level and was invested with the
\npowers of signing cash vouchers, memos and travel expense vouchers.
\nThe appellant has also admitted his signatures in the performance
\nappraisal form of an employee subordinate to him which shows his
\nsupervisory powers.   From the records it is also borne out that the
\nappellant was the authorised signatory in the sales tax forms, was
\nresponsible for the coordination and management of accounting
\nactivities within various departments of the company.  The above
\nreferred decision therefore shall not be applicable on the facts of
\nthe present case.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIn
\nthe case of Anand
\nRegional Coop Oil Seedsgrowers’ Union Ltd. (supra), para 15 reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“Supervision
\ncontemplates direction and control. While determining the nature of
\nthe work performed by an employee, the essence of the matter should
\ncall for consideration. An undue importance need not be given for the
\ndesignation of an employee, or the name assigned to, the class to
\nwhich he belongs. What is needed to be asked is as to what are the
\nprimary duties he performs. For the said purpose, it is necessary to
\nprove that there were some persons working under him whose work is
\nrequired to be supervised. Being incharge of the section alone and
\nthat too it being a small one and relating to quality control would
\nnot answer the test.”\n<\/p>\n
7.1\tThe
\naforesaid decision shall also  not be applicable to the facts of the
\npresent case as the primary duties as enumerated hereinabove clearly
\nreveal that there were some persons working under the appellant whose
\nwork was required to be supervised.  The said fact is also evident
\nfrom the deposition of one Shri Manojkumar Nair.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tEven
\nthe decision in the case of Anoop Sharma (supra) does not hold any
\ngood as far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are
\nconcerned.  It is required to be noted that one of the main
\ningredients for an employee to be considered as a workman under the
\nAct is that there must exist
\na relationship of employer and employee. But  the persons inter alia
\nexcluded are those who are employed mainly in a managerial or
\nadministrative capacity.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe
\nlearned Single Judge in para 2.3 of the impugned judgment and order
\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.3\tThe
\nfacts which are required to be noted here are that, the present
\npetitioner – workman was getting total emoluments of
\nRs.21,000\/- when his services were brought to an end.  His basic pay
\nwas Rs.10,065\/-.  Besides, the learned Judge has taken care by taking
\nnote of the fact that he was one of the signatories on the cheques of
\nthe company.  Besides, he was supposed to fill in his ‘Appraisal
\nForm’ and learned Judge has rightly noticed that, taking into
\nconsideration voluminous evidence led before the Court, the nature of
\nduties assigned to the petitioner – workman definitely put him
\noutside the definition of ‘Workman’.  The learned Judge has taken
\nnote of the fact that a cheque used to be cleared only with the
\nsignatures two authorized signatories and one of them being the
\npetitioner – workman.  The learned Judge has rightly held that,
\n‘an ordinary workman will not be assigned such status that the
\ncheques get cleared with his signature’.  The learned Judge has
\nalso appreciated the evidence led by the establishment –
\nrespondent herein that is – Manoj Kumar, who has also deposed that,
\n‘when he joined the services, the petitioner – workman was
\nhis Boss’ and taking into consideration all this, the learned
\nJudge has appreciated that the petitioner will not fall within the
\ndefinition of term ‘Workman’ as defined in Clause 2(s) of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ID Act’).
\n The definition is very clear, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“2(s)\tworkman
\nmeans any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry
\nto do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
\n clerical or supervisory work for hire or
\nreward, whether the terms of <\/p>\n
employment be expressed or
\nimplied and, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in
\nrelation to an industrial dispute; includes any such person who has
\nbeen dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
\nconsequence of, that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or
\nretrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such
\nperson-\n<\/p>\n
i)\txxx<\/p>\n
ii)\txxx<\/p>\n
iii)\twho
\nis employed mainly in a managerial
\n \tor administrative capacity;\n<\/p>\n
or <\/p>\n
iv)\twho
\nbeing employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding one
\nthousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercise either by the
\nnature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the
\npowers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature…”\n<\/p>\n
9.1\tThe
\nlabour court has discussed each and every aspect of the matter in
\ndetail and also considered the various decisions and law laid down by
\nthis court as well as the Apex Court and has come to the conclusion
\nthat the appellant cannot be considered a workman under the
\nprovisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Single Judge has confirmed the said view of the labour
\ncourt.  This court is in complete agreement with the same.   No
\ninterference is therefore called for in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn
\nthe premises aforesaid, the appeal is devoid of any merits and is
\ndismissed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
(V.M.\n<\/p>\n
SAHAI, J.)    (K.S. JHAVERI, J.)\n \n\nDivya\/\/\n\n\n\n    \n\n \n\t   \n      \n      \n\t    \n\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\t   \n      \n\t  \t    \n\t\t   Top\n\t   \n      \n   \n    \n                            \n                            \n                            \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court S vs Blue on 8 November, 2011 Author: V. M. Jhaveri, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/1549\/2011 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1549 of 2011 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3083 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. […]<\/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-25142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS vs Blue on 8 November, 2011 - 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\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S vs Blue on 8 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-27T11:38:39+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\\\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S vs Blue on 8 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-27T11:38:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1747,\"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\\\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011\",\"name\":\"S vs Blue on 8 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-27T11:38:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S vs Blue on 8 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"S vs Blue on 8 November, 2011 - 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\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S vs Blue on 8 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-27T11:38:39+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\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S vs Blue on 8 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-27T11:38:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011"},"wordCount":1747,"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\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011","name":"S vs Blue on 8 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-27T11:38:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vs-blue-on-8-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S vs Blue on 8 November, 2011"}]},{"@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\/25142","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=25142"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25142\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}