{"id":259118,"date":"2008-12-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-24T07:14:39","modified_gmt":"2018-06-24T01:44:39","slug":"the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Manager vs Binson Thomas on 11 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Manager vs Binson Thomas on 11 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMFA.No. 198 of 2008()\n\n\n1. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. BINSON THOMAS, S\/O. THOMAS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. O.C. THOMAS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.LAL GEORGE\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :11\/12\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
             J.B. Koshy & Thomas P.Joseph, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                ————————————–
\n                M.F.A. (WCC) No.198 of 2008\n<\/p>\n
                —————————————
\n     Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008<\/p>\n
                             Judgment<\/p>\n
Koshy,J.\n<\/p>\n
           Only contention raised by the insurance company in this<\/p>\n
appeal is that rate of interest awarded by the Commissioner for<\/p>\n
Workmen’s Compensation in the impugned order from the date of<\/p>\n
accident was illegal and interest should have been granted only<\/p>\n
from the date of adjudication.     Award of interest    is statutory .<\/p>\n
Section 4A (3) reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
               “4A.Compensation to be paid when due
\n         and penalty for default:- xx        xx       xx<\/p>\n
               (3) Where any employer is in default in
\n         paying the compensation due, under this Act
\n         within one month from the date it fell due, the
\n         Commissioner shall —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     (a) direct that the employer shall,
\n               in addition to the amount of the arrears,
\n               pay simple interest thereon at the rate of
\n               twelve per cent per annum or at such
\n               higher rate not exceeding the maximum
\n               of the lending rates of any scheduled
\n               bank as may be specified by the Central
\n               Government, by notification in the Official
\n               Gazette, on the amount due; and<\/p>\n
M.F.A.(WCC) No.198\/2008                2<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        (b) if, in his opinion, there is no
\n                 justification for the delay, direct that the
\n                 employer shall, in addition to the amount
\n                 of the arrears, and interest thereon pay a
\n                 further sum not exceeding fifty per cent
\n                 of such amount by way of penalty;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 PROVIDED that an order for the payment
\n          of penalty shall not be passed under clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to
\n          the employer to show cause why it should not
\n          be passed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Explanation: For the purposes of this
\n          sub-section, “scheduled bank” means a bank
\n          for the time being included in the Second
\n          Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act<\/a>,
\n          1934 (2 of 1934).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A reading of the above section shows that compensation has to be<\/p>\n
paid within one month from the date it fell due and if it is not paid,<\/p>\n
interest at the rate of 12% or on a higher rate not exceeding the<\/p>\n
maximum of the rate of interest of the schedule bank should be paid<\/p>\n
from the date when compensation ‘fell due’. So, the only question<\/p>\n
to be decided is when the compensation fell due. A Constitution<\/p>\n
Bench    of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v.<\/p>\n
Shrinivas Sabata and another<\/a> (AIR 1976 SC 222 = ((1976) 1 SCC<\/p>\n
289) held that even a reference under section 19<\/a> of the Act does<\/p>\n
not have the effect of suspending the liability of an employer to pay<\/p>\n
compensation under section 3<\/a> till after adjudication or settlement.<\/p>\n
M.F.A.(WCC) No.198\/2008              3<\/span><\/p>\n
It is the duty of the employer to pay\/deposit compensation as soon<\/p>\n
as personal injury is caused to the workman in an accident during<\/p>\n
the course of employment. If the employer fails to do so within one<\/p>\n
month of the accident and also makes no provisional payment, he is<\/p>\n
liable to pay interest from the date of accident. Apex Court held as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
                    “7. Section 3<\/a> of the Act deals with the
\n            employer’s liability for compensation. Sub-
\n            section (1) of that section provides that the
\n            employer shall be liable to pay compensation
\n            if “personal injury is caused to a workman by
\n            accident arising out of and in the course of
\n            his employment.” It was not the case of the
\n            employer that the right to compensation was
\n            taken away under sub-section (5) of section
\n            3<\/a> because of the institution of a suit in a civil
\n            court for damages, in respect of the injury,
\n            against the employer or any other person.
\n            The employer      therefore became liable to
\n            pay the compensation as soon as the
\n            aforesaid personal injury was caused to the
\n            workman by the accident which admittedly
\n            arose out of and in the course of the
\n            employment. It is therefore futile to contend
\n            that the compensation did not fall due until
\n            after the Commissioner’s order dated May 6,
\n            1969 under section 19<\/a>.       What the section
\n            provides is that if any question arises in any
\n            proceeding under the Act as to the liability of
\n            any person to pay compensation or as to the
\n            amount or duration of the compensation it
\n            shall, in default of agreement, be settled by
\n            the Commissioner.         There is therefore
\n            nothing to justify the argument that the
\n            employer’s liability to pay compensation<\/p>\n
M.F.A.(WCC) No.198\/2008              4<\/span><\/p>\n
            under section 3<\/a>, in respect of the injury, was
\n            suspended      until  after  the    settlement
\n            contemplated by section 19<\/a>. The appellant
\n            was thus liable to pay compensation as soon
\n            as the aforesaid personal injury was caused
\n            to the appellant, and there is no justification
\n            for the argument to the contrary.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Apex Court at paragraph 8 it was observed as follows:<\/p>\n
                    “8. It was the duty of the appellant,
\n            under section 4-A<\/a> (1) of the Act to pay the
\n            compensation       at the rate provided by
\n            section 4<\/a> as soon as the personal injury was
\n            caused to the respondent. He failed to do
\n            so. What is worse, he did not even make a
\n            provisional payment under sub-section (2)
\n            of section 4<\/a> for, as has been stated, he went
\n            to the extent of taking the false pleas that
\n            the respondent was a casual contractor and
\n            that the accident occurred solely because of
\n            his negligence.    Then there is the further
\n            fact     that  he  paid  no   heed    to  the
\n            respondent’s      personal   approach      for
\n            obtaining the compensation.        It will be
\n            recalled that the respondent was driven to
\n            the necessity of making an application to
\n            the Commissioner for settling the claim and
\n            even there the appellant raised a frivolous
\n            objection as to the jurisdiction of the
\n            Commissioner……”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
            2. The Workmen’s Compensation Act<\/a> was amended in<\/p>\n
1995 by Act No.30 of 1995 and the rate of compensation amount<\/p>\n
was enhanced. Until that time, maximum monthly income that can<\/p>\n
be taken for calculation of compensation was only Rs.1,000\/-. By<\/p>\n
M.F.A.(WCC) No.198\/2008             5<\/span><\/p>\n
the above amendment Act, that amount was increased to<\/p>\n
Rs.2,000\/-. It was the contention of the workmen that compensation<\/p>\n
falls due on the date of adjudication. Therefore, even if the accident<\/p>\n
was before the amendment of the Act, when adjudication was over<\/p>\n
and order was passed only after the amendment, they are entitled<\/p>\n
to the benefit of the amendment and            to a higher rate of<\/p>\n
compensation. On the other hand, the employers and insurance<\/p>\n
companies contended that compensation ‘fell due’ on the date of<\/p>\n
accident itself and not on the date of adjudication or the date of<\/p>\n
application. Therefore, compensation has to be calculated as per the<\/p>\n
statutory provisions existing as on the date of accident. The matter<\/p>\n
was referred to a three-member Bench.         In K.S.E.B. v. Valsala<\/a><\/p>\n
((1999) 8 SCC 254), a three member Bench of the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
held that relevant date for determination of the rights and liabilities<\/p>\n
of the parties concerned is the date of accident and not the date of<\/p>\n
adjudication of the claim. Workmen’s Compensation Act<\/a> is a welfare<\/p>\n
legislation and it cannot be stated that whenever an interpretation<\/p>\n
beneficial to the workman is possible, that should be avoided and<\/p>\n
only interpretation that is injurious to the workman should be<\/p>\n
adopted. Employers and insurance companies cannot contend that<\/p>\n
when the quantum of compensation is calculated, it should be<\/p>\n
M.F.A.(WCC) No.198\/2008            6<\/span><\/p>\n
calculated on the basis of the statutory provisions and facts as<\/p>\n
compensation falls due on the date of accident and not on the date<\/p>\n
of adjudication but with regard to the award of interest, it can be<\/p>\n
awarded only from the date of award. What is the compensation<\/p>\n
payable on the date of accident is calculated. Now, considering the<\/p>\n
reduction of money value, interest is to be calculated from that date<\/p>\n
itself.\n<\/p>\n
            3.      In Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others<\/a><\/p>\n
((1997) 8 SCC 1), the Apex Court calculated interest from the date<\/p>\n
of accident. In Maghar Sing v. Jashwant Singh<\/a> ((1998) 9 SCC 134)<\/p>\n
the accident occurred on 26.7.1984.        Application filed by the<\/p>\n
workman was rejected by the commissioner and the High Court.<\/p>\n
Apex Court held that workman was entitled to get compensation at<\/p>\n
the rate applicable on the date of accident. But, when Supreme<\/p>\n
Court allowed the claim, the Act was amended and rate of interest<\/p>\n
payable was enhanced from 6% to 12% in 1995 by Act No.30 of<\/p>\n
1995. Hon’ble Apex Court by using constitutional power, in the<\/p>\n
interest of justice and considering the long delay, reduced the rate<\/p>\n
of interest from 12% to 9%, but, directed the employer to pay<\/p>\n
interest from 26.7.1984 (date of accident) till payment. Apex Court<\/p>\n
observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
M.F.A.(WCC) No.198\/2008               7<\/span><\/p>\n
                     “6. The accident occurred way back in
\n             1984 and, therefore,we must decide the rate
\n             of interest keeping that factor in mind. We
\n             think that it would be appropriate to grant
\n             interest at the rate of 9% per annum.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     7. In the result, we allow this appeal,
\n             set aside the orders of the courts below and
\n             hold     that  the  appellant   is entitled to
\n             compensation of Rs.24,000 with interest at
\n             the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
\n             accident, i.e., 26.7.1984 till the date of
\n             recovery or actual payment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Following the decision of the larger bench in M.F.A.No.84 of 2007, a<\/p>\n
Division Bench of this court, in which one of us (J.B.Koshy, J) was a<\/p>\n
party held that as per the provisions of the Workmen’s<\/p>\n
Compensation Act<\/a>, interest on the amount of compensation is<\/p>\n
payable from the date of accident.      The SLP filed from the above<\/p>\n
judgment was dismissed as can be seen from the order of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.10696\/2008 in National Insurance Co.<\/p>\n
Ltd. v. N. Khadeeja & Others<\/a>.     In these circumstances, there is no<\/p>\n
merit in the appeal. Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                   J.B.Koshy
\n                                                     Judge<\/p>\n
                                              Thomas P. Joseph
\n                                                     Judge
\nvaa<\/p>\n
M.F.A.(WCC) No.198\/2008    8<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       J.B. KOSHY
\n                                           AND
\n                              THOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                             ————————————-
\n                             M.F.A.(WCC)No.198\/2008\n<\/p>\n
                             ————————————-<\/p>\n
                                       Judgment<\/p>\n
                               Date:11th December,2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Manager vs Binson Thomas on 11 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MFA.No. 198 of 2008() 1. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY … Petitioner Vs 1. BINSON THOMAS, S\/O. THOMAS, … Respondent 2. O.C. THOMAS, For Petitioner :SRI.LAL GEORGE For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-259118","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Manager vs Binson Thomas on 11 December, 2008 - 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\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Manager vs Binson Thomas on 11 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-24T01:44:39+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Manager vs Binson Thomas on 11 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-24T01:44:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1639,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008\",\"name\":\"The Manager vs Binson Thomas on 11 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-24T01:44:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Manager vs Binson Thomas on 11 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"The Manager vs Binson Thomas on 11 December, 2008 - 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\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Manager vs Binson Thomas on 11 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-24T01:44:39+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Manager vs Binson Thomas on 11 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-24T01:44:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008"},"wordCount":1639,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008","name":"The Manager vs Binson Thomas on 11 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-24T01:44:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-manager-vs-binson-thomas-on-11-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Manager vs Binson Thomas on 11 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/259118","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=259118"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259118\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}