{"id":258259,"date":"2002-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002"},"modified":"2016-10-16T23:58:34","modified_gmt":"2016-10-16T18:28:34","slug":"d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002","title":{"rendered":"D. Ramasamy vs The Appellate Authority Under on 15 February, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">D. Ramasamy vs The Appellate Authority Under on 15 February, 2002<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS          \n\n DATED : 15.2.2002 \n\nCORAM :  \n\n THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR           \n\n Writ Petition No.881 of 1996\n\n\n D. Ramasamy                                    ..              Petitioner\n\n                                        -Vs-\n\n 1.The Appellate Authority under\n<a href=\"\/doc\/553799\/\" id=\"a_1\">Payment of Gratuity Act<\/a> cum \nDeputy Commissioner of Labour  \nSalem. \n\n2.The Controlling Authority under\n<a href=\"\/doc\/553799\/\" id=\"a_1\">Payment of Gratuity Act<\/a>-cum- \nAssistant Commissioner of Labour \nSalem. \n\n3.The Management of Salem Refractories  \nrepresented by its Managing Director\nMr.Prakash Metha  \nKaruppur, Salem 636 012.                ..              Respondents  \n\nPetition under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_2\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India praying for\nthe issue of a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\n        For Petitioner          :       Mrs.G.Shanthi Meenakshi  \n                                        for Mr.P.K.Rajagopal\n        For Respondents         :        \n                         RR 1 &amp; 2 :     Mrs.Thenmozhi Sivaperumal  \n                                                Addl.Government Pleader  \n                                R3   :  Mr.M.R.Raghavan  \n\n                                   * * * * *\n:                                  O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        The present petition is filed by an employee, who is being refused his<br \/>\npayment of gratuity under the <a href=\"\/doc\/553799\/\" id=\"a_3\">Payment of Gratuity Act<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        2.  Initially, the authority concerned had found him entitled  to  the<br \/>\npayment of gratuity of Rs.7,007\/- on the basis of eight years service rendered<br \/>\nby him  to  the  organisation   Salem Refractories Private Limited.  It is an<br \/>\nadmitted position that this petitioner has actually  served  the  organisation<br \/>\nfor eight  years.    It is also an admitted position that he was being paid an<br \/>\nhonorarium of Rs.1,735\/- per month and that after eight years of  service,  he<br \/>\nresigned from  the  organisation.  The payment of gratuity having been refused<br \/>\nto him, he approached the authorities under the <a href=\"\/doc\/553799\/\" id=\"a_4\">Payment of Gratuity Act<\/a> and as<br \/>\nstated earlier, the first authority  found  him  entitled.    However,  in  an<br \/>\nappeal,  the  appellate  authority  took  the  view  that  since  he  was paid<br \/>\nhonorarium and since he was a retired employee (from other  organisation),  he<br \/>\nwas  not  an  employee  within  the  meaning of <a href=\"\/doc\/33143\/\" id=\"a_5\">Section 2(e)<\/a> of the Payment of<br \/>\nGratuity Act and that it could not be said he was  earning  wages  as  he  was<br \/>\nbeing paid  only  honorarium.    The appellate authority, it seems, has relied<br \/>\nupon the following two decisions:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">1.<a href=\"\/doc\/1743423\/\" id=\"a_6\">Binay Kumar Chatterjee v.  Jugantar Ltd.  And Others<\/a> (1983 II L.L.N.30)\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">2.Edwin A Daniel and another v.  Labour Court, Coimbatore and another (1993<br \/>\nI L.L.N.169)<\/p>\n<p>The  only  reason  why the appellate authority has come to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe petitioner was not an employee is on account of the law laid down in these<br \/>\ndecisions.  Therefore, it will be better to consider these decisions.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        3.  In the Binay Kumar Chatterjee&#8217;s case, the employee was serving the<br \/>\nsame organisation and he retired therefrom and thereafter he  sought  a  fresh<br \/>\nemployment  under  contract  and  that  was  not  continuation of the original<br \/>\nservice.  The Supreme Court was concerned  with  <a href=\"\/doc\/197488532\/\" id=\"a_7\">Section  14<\/a>  of  the  Working<br \/>\nJournalists  (Conditions  of  service and <a href=\"\/doc\/269107\/\" id=\"a_8\">Miscellaneous Provisions) Act<\/a> and it<br \/>\ncame to the conclusion that the workman could not  contend  that  the  further<br \/>\nemployment  given  to  him  was  in  reality  a  continuation  of the previous<br \/>\nemployment and that the termination of his  service  should  be  taken  to  be<br \/>\neffective  from  the  date  of  termination  of the fresh contract and that he<br \/>\nshould be given the benefit of continuation.  Firstly,  this  is  not  a  case<br \/>\nunder  the  <a href=\"\/doc\/553799\/\" id=\"a_9\">Payment  of  Gratuity Act<\/a> and secondly, the factual matrix is also<br \/>\ndifferent, in the sense that, the  petitioner  herein  was  not  an  erstwhile<br \/>\nemployee of  the  employer.    His  was  an  independent and separate contract<br \/>\ndehorse of and apart from the earlier employment.   Further,  this  is  not  a<br \/>\nquestion of  continuation  being  claimed by the employee.  Therefore, the law<br \/>\nlaid down in this case would not be applicable.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        4.  The other case of Edwin Daniel is again no different.  There, this<br \/>\ndecision which is rendered by Honourable Justice M.Srinivasan as his  Lordship<br \/>\nthen  was,  suggests  that  an  employee  who was an erstwhile employee of the<br \/>\nemployer and  is  retired,  and  thereafter  re-employed  again  cannot  claim<br \/>\nconfirmation as  of  right  and cannot claim to be a regular employee.  Again,<br \/>\nthis was a case where a fresh appointment was made and the petitioner  therein<br \/>\nwas  appointed  on probation, but he was terminated later on during the course<br \/>\nof his probation.  That termination was challenged and  an  award  was  passed<br \/>\nagainst the  employee  holding  that  the non-employment was justified.  It is<br \/>\nalso accepted by the Labour Court that the  petitioner  was  not  governed  by<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/329413\/\" id=\"a_10\">Section 2<\/a>(  oo)  of  the  <a href=\"\/doc\/500379\/\" id=\"a_11\">Industrial  Disputes  Act<\/a>.    His  Lordship  Justice<br \/>\nM.Srinivasan, as his lordship then  was,  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the<br \/>\nconfirmation   was   not  automatic  and  that  unless  a  specific  order  of<br \/>\nconfirmation was passed, the petitioner could not  claim  that  he  should  be<br \/>\ntreated as  a  regular  employee.    His Lordship also made a reference to the<br \/>\nSupreme Court judgment in Binay Kumar Chatterjee&#8217;s case and  observed  that  a<br \/>\nperson,  who  had  attained  the  age  of  superannuation and is given a fresh<br \/>\nemployment thereafter, could not claim the benefits of the standing orders and<br \/>\nthat such appointment is only contractual and the termination of his  services<br \/>\nwill  not  amount  to  retrenchment  within  the meaning of <a href=\"\/doc\/1056316\/\" id=\"a_12\">Section 25F<\/a> of the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        5.  In my opinion, the said  judgment  is  not  all  apposite  to  the<br \/>\ncontroversy involved.    I have also explained as to why the judgment in Binay<br \/>\nKumar Chatterjee&#8217;s case would not apply to the present  case.    In  both  the<br \/>\ncases,  the  question was regarding the standing orders and the benefits being<br \/>\nclaimed therein.  The benefit under <a href=\"\/doc\/553799\/\" id=\"a_13\">Payment of Gratuity  Act<\/a>  is  entirely  an<br \/>\nindependent statutory  benefit  covered by a different Act altogether.  We are<br \/>\nconcerned only with that  Act.    Both  the  judgments  were,  therefore,  not<br \/>\napposite  to  the controversy and the appellate authority has clearly erred in<br \/>\nrelying upon them and holding that the petitioner was not an  employee.    The<br \/>\nword &#8217;employee&#8217; is defined in <a href=\"\/doc\/33143\/\" id=\"a_14\">Section 2(e)<\/a> as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">&#8220;2(e):-  &#8220;employee&#8221;  means  any  person (other than an apprentice) employed on<br \/>\nwages, in any  establishment,  factory,  mine,  oil-field,  plantation,  port,<br \/>\nrailway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual,<br \/>\nsupervisory,  technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment<br \/>\nare express or implied, [and whether or not  such  person  is  employed  in  a<br \/>\nmanagerial  or  administrative  capacity, but does not include any such person<br \/>\nwho holds a post under the Central Government or a  State  Government  and  is<br \/>\ngoverned by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity.]&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">When  we see the simple language of the definition, there can be no doubt that<br \/>\nthe petitioner herein was an employed person.  It was tried  to  be  suggested<br \/>\nthat he  did not earn wages.  The word &#8216;wages&#8217; is also defined in <a href=\"\/doc\/329413\/\" id=\"a_15\">Section 2(s)<\/a><br \/>\nand the definition is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">&#8220;2(s):- &#8220;wages&#8221; means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while  on<br \/>\nduty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment<br \/>\nand  which  are  paid  or  are  payable  to  him in cash and includes dearness<br \/>\nallowance but does not include any bonus,  commission,  house-rent  allowance,<br \/>\novertime wages and any other allowance.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">Reading  the  definition,  there could be no doubt that the employee was being<br \/>\nregularly paid for his services the so called &#8216;honorarium&#8217; which would  amount<br \/>\nto  emoluments  paid  for the work and therefore, would be covered in the term<br \/>\n&#8216;wages&#8217;.  The  different  nomenclature  given  to  the  emoluments  is  of  no<br \/>\nconsequence.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">        6.   Mr.Raghavan, learned counsel for the third respondent however, by<br \/>\nway of almost a desperate argument, relied on <a href=\"\/doc\/1934248\/\" id=\"a_16\">Section 4<\/a> and suggested that the<br \/>\nsection will apply only if the employee is superannuated  or  retired  or  has<br \/>\nresigned or  has expired.  Even accepting this argument, I am of the view that<br \/>\nthe petitioner would still be entitled because, he has resigned  his  job  and<br \/>\ntherefore his  case  would  be  covered  under  <a href=\"\/doc\/1928075\/\" id=\"a_17\">Section  4(1)(b)<\/a>.  There is no<br \/>\ndispute about the fact that he has put in  eight  years  of  service  and  has<br \/>\nthereafter ceased  to  serve  on account of his resignation.  There is also no<br \/>\ndispute that the calculation is correct.  Therefore, the  appellate  authority<br \/>\nhas erred  in  coming  to the contrary conclusion.  The order of the appellate<br \/>\nauthority is  set  aside  and  the  earlier  order  passed  by  the  Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner of  Labour,  Salem  is  restored.   The Writ Petition is allowed.<br \/>\nRule is made absolute.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">15.2.2002<br \/>\nIndex :  Yes<br \/>\nWebsite :  Yes<br \/>\nkst.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">To:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">1.The Appellate Authority under<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/553799\/\" id=\"a_18\">Payment of Gratuity Act<\/a> cum<br \/>\nDeputy Commissioner of Labour<br \/>\nSalem.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">2.The Controlling Authority under<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/553799\/\" id=\"a_19\">Payment of Gratuity Act<\/a>-cum-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">Assistant Commissioner of Labour <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court D. Ramasamy vs The Appellate Authority Under on 15 February, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.2.2002 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR Writ Petition No.881 of 1996 D. Ramasamy .. Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour Salem. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-258259","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>D. Ramasamy vs The Appellate Authority Under on 15 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D. Ramasamy vs The Appellate Authority Under on 15 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-16T18:28:34+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D. Ramasamy vs The Appellate Authority Under on 15 February, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-16T18:28:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1287,\"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\\\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002\",\"name\":\"D. Ramasamy vs The Appellate Authority Under on 15 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-16T18:28:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D. Ramasamy vs The Appellate Authority Under on 15 February, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"D. Ramasamy vs The Appellate Authority Under on 15 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D. Ramasamy vs The Appellate Authority Under on 15 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-16T18:28:34+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D. Ramasamy vs The Appellate Authority Under on 15 February, 2002","datePublished":"2002-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-16T18:28:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002"},"wordCount":1287,"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\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002","name":"D. Ramasamy vs The Appellate Authority Under on 15 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-16T18:28:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ramasamy-vs-the-appellate-authority-under-on-15-february-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D. Ramasamy vs The Appellate Authority Under on 15 February, 2002"}]},{"@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\/258259","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=258259"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258259\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258259"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258259"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258259"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}