{"id":260306,"date":"2009-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009"},"modified":"2019-04-08T08:48:07","modified_gmt":"2019-04-08T03:18:07","slug":"gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gulshan Rai Madan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Gulshan Rai Madan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah<\/div>\n
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+      LPA 334\/2009\n\n       GULSHAN RAI MADAN                          ..... Appellant\n                       Through Mr. G.D. Gupta, Senior Advocate as Amicus\n                       Curiae with Mr. Shahzad Khan, Advocate.\n                versus\n\n       GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                 ..... Respondents\n                       Through Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate for R-2.\n\n       CORAM:\n       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\n       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR\n\n                 ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
%                15.12.2009<\/p>\n
1.     This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.9.2008 passed by the learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge dismissing the Appellant\u201fs Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6382\/2008.<\/p>\n
2.     The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the Appellant was on<\/p>\n
8.5.1989 appointed as “Customer Support Executive” in Grade M-7 in Tata Telecom Ltd.<\/p>\n
(presently known as Avaya Global Connect India), Respondent No. 2, herein at New<\/p>\n
Delhi. He was earning a salary of Rs.18,000\/- per month. Subsequently, the Appellant<\/p>\n
was promoted to Grade M-6 as “Senior Engineer Strategic Accounts”. Against the order<\/p>\n
dated 10.10.2002 passed by the Respondent No. 2 removing him from service, the<\/p>\n
Appellant on 23.1.2005 filed a statement of claim before the Labour Court.             On<\/p>\n
22.9.2004 the Secretary (Labour), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi<\/p>\n
(GNCTD) referred to the Labour Court an industrial dispute on the issue whether the<\/p>\n
termination of the services of the Appellant by the Respondent No. 2 was illegal and<\/p>\n
unjustified and if so, the consequential relief to which the Appellant was entitled. In its<\/p>\n
written statement before the Labour Court Respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary<\/p>\n
objection that the Appellant was not a workman within the definition of Section 2(s)<\/a> of<\/p>\n
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act<\/a>).\n<\/p>\n
3.     On 3.9.2007 the Labour Court made an Award holding that the Appellant was not<\/p>\n
a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s)<\/a> ID Act and, therefore, the dispute raised<\/p>\n
was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k)<\/a> of the ID Act.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the aforementioned Award, the Appellant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.<\/p>\n
6382 of 2008 in this Court which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated<\/p>\n
LPA 334\/2009                                                                Page 1 of 4<\/span>
\n 2.9.2008.\n<\/p>\n
4.       At our request Mr. G.D. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel kindly consented to be<\/p>\n
Amicus Curiae to the said Appellant and addressed arguments. It is submitted by Mr.<\/p>\n
Gupta that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Appellant was not a workman<\/p>\n
on the ground that exception (iv) to Section 2(s)<\/a> of the ID Act stood attracted was<\/p>\n
erroneous in the facts and circumstances of the case. Placing reliance upon the judgment<\/p>\n
of the Supreme Court in Anand Regional Cooperative Oil Seedsgrowers’ Union Ltd. v.<\/p>\n
Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah<\/a>, (2006) 6 SCC 548. It is submitted there was a<\/p>\n
single instance where the Appellant assisted the management in supervising the work of<\/p>\n
contract labourers, since the contractor who employed them was not available on the<\/p>\n
given date. This by itself could not change the nature of the functions assigned to the<\/p>\n
Appellant thereby holding him not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s)<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
ID Act.     Mr. Gupta referred to certain documents on record which show that the<\/p>\n
Appellant himself attended to the complaints of customers and therefore he was a<\/p>\n
workman for all practical purposes. He also referred to the organizational chart which<\/p>\n
showed that the Appellant was at the bottom rung. In sum, it is submitted that there were<\/p>\n
no persons working below the Appellant in the organization and, therefore, he could not<\/p>\n
be said to be a supervisor or a manager and be held to be outside the definition of<\/p>\n
\u201eworkman\u201f under Section 2(s)<\/a> of the ID Act.\n<\/p>\n
5.       On the other hand, Ms. Raavi Birbal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent<\/p>\n
No. 2 placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in H.R. Adyanthaya and<\/p>\n
others v. Sandoz (India) Ltd<\/a>., (1994) 5 SCC 737, Burmah Shell Oil Storage and<\/p>\n
Distribution Company of India Ltd. v. The Burma Shell Management Staff<\/p>\n
Association<\/a>, 1970 (3) SCC 378 and Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh<\/a>,<\/p>\n
(2005) 3 SCC 232. She contended that on his own admission, the Respondent was not a<\/p>\n
workman.\n<\/p>\n
6.       Section 2(s)<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which defines workman reads as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
                2(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice)
\n                employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
\n                technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or
\n                reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied,
\n                and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to
\nLPA 334\/2009                                                                 Page 2 of 4<\/span>
\n                an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been
\n               dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
\n               consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
\n               retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such
\n               person –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (i)    who is subject to the Air Force Act<\/a>, 1950 (45 of 1950), or
\n               the Army Act<\/a>, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act<\/a>, 1957 (62 of
\n               1957); or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               (ii)   who is employed in the police service or as an officer or
\n               other employee of a prison; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               (iii)  who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative
\n               capacity; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               (iv)   who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws
\n               wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or
\n               exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or
\n               by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a
\n               managerial nature.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.     The evidence of the Appellant before the Labour Court shows that even according<\/p>\n
to the Appellant he was performing the work of Supervisor. The relevant portion of his<\/p>\n
cross-examination is as under :\n<\/p>\n
               “I was issued appointment letter of the time of my employment. I
\n               was appointed w.e.f. 1st June 1989. Prior to my appointment I had
\n               submitted my bio-data to the company. I have not brought today
\n               copy of bio-data. I was retired from Indian Air Force as a servant.
\n               I am a diploma holder in electronics and communication. I have
\n               also passed Computer Engineering Examination from AMIE. I
\n               have completed said course prior to my retirement. Initially I
\n               joined as a trainee Air Craftman in Indian Air Force and thereafter
\n               I was promoted as Air Craftman, Leading Air Craftman, Leading
\n               Air Corporal Servant. It is correct that the above promotional post
\n               under supervision of request.        I have also passed written
\n               examination of junior warrant officer in Indian Air Force.
\n               Thereafter, I joined Modi Xerox as a technician and worked
\n               …………approximately four years. My last resignation was
\n               Telecommunication Officer. Since I was in Modi Xerox, the Tata
\n               Telecom installed their EPABX to Xerox ….. I interacted through
\n               Xerox and applied directly to the Rama Mahajan and given my
\n               bio-data.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               It is correct that I joined Tata Telecom as a Executive Cadre. It is
\n               correct that Ex. WW1\/M1 was issued by the management at the
\n               time of my appointment which is my initial appointment letter.
\n               The Ex. WW1\/M1 bears my signature of point \u201eA\u201f. It is correct
\n               that my first designation as per Ex. WW1\/M1 i.e. customer support
\n               executive in Grade M-7. The staff of the company wherein I was
\n               appointed are covered under S-Grade. It is correct that the grading
\n               of staff members from S-1 to S-6. I was lastly promoted from
\n               Grade M-7 to M-6 as a Senior Engineer. I was again re-designated
\n               as Senior Engineer, Strategic Accounts. It is correct that I have
\n               made correspondence with Scope Complex situated at Laxmi
\n               Nagar, opposite Telephone Exchange Building. Again said I was
\n               working there. I was the incharge of that project and getting the
\nLPA 334\/2009                                                                   Page 3 of 4<\/span>
\n                 assistance of my manager. I was supervising the job of
\n                contractual workman, who were working under my
\n                supervision there was installation of EPBAX including cabling
\n                work in Scope Complex. It is correct that my last drawn
\n                salary were more than Rs.18,000\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                          (emphasis supplied)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.      The Respondent further stated during his cross-examination as under :<\/p>\n
                “I was also supervised the project carrier Aircon Gurgaon and
\n                Eastern Command in Indian Army during my ……………. of
\n                employment with Tata Telecom. Three were contractual workers
\n                working in the abovesaid project, who were working under my
\n                supervision and control. Those contractual workers of the
\n                abovesaid project were 6 to 7 and again said about 10 to 12.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                              (emphasis supplied)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.      It is plain to us that even according to the Appellant the nature of his duties while<\/p>\n
employed with the Respondent No. 2 was such that he was outside the purview of Section<\/p>\n
2(s)<\/a> of the I.D. Act read with exception (iv) thereof. It is not as if his supervisory work<\/p>\n
was on a single occasion as contended. Further, he was admittedly earning more than<\/p>\n
Rs.18,000\/- per month. Ultimately each case has to be decided on the facts and the<\/p>\n
evidence that has come on record.\n<\/p>\n
10.     We accordingly find no merit in this appeal and is dismissed as such with no<\/p>\n
orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                      CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                                      S.MURALIDHAR, J
\nDECEMBER 15, 2009
\ndk<\/p>\n
LPA 334\/2009                                                                  Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Gulshan Rai Madan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2009 Author: Ajit Prakash Shah * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 334\/2009 GULSHAN RAI MADAN ….. Appellant Through Mr. G.D. Gupta, Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae with Mr. Shahzad Khan, Advocate. versus […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260306","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGulshan Rai Madan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2009 - 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\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gulshan Rai Madan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-08T03:18:07+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\\\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gulshan Rai Madan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-08T03:18:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1418,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Gulshan Rai Madan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-08T03:18:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gulshan Rai Madan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Gulshan Rai Madan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2009 - 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\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gulshan Rai Madan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-08T03:18:07+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\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gulshan Rai Madan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-08T03:18:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009"},"wordCount":1418,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009","name":"Gulshan Rai Madan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-08T03:18:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulshan-rai-madan-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gulshan Rai Madan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/260306","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=260306"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260306\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}