{"id":261625,"date":"2008-11-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008"},"modified":"2019-01-07T02:52:21","modified_gmt":"2019-01-06T21:22:21","slug":"the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Vayitri Plantations Ltd vs Mr.M.P.Ramankutty on 6 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Vayitri Plantations Ltd vs Mr.M.P.Ramankutty on 6 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 1307 of 2006()\n\n\n1. THE VAYITRI PLANTATIONS LTD.,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MR.M.P.RAMANKUTTY, ESTATE WORKER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE COURT OF AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 4 OF\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\n\n Dated :06\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                 H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J.\n<\/p>\n
             – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
                                 W.A.No. 1307 of 2006
\n                                               &
\n                               O.P.No. 13853 of 2002\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008<\/p>\n
                                         Judgment
\nH.L. Dattu, C. J:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Appellant before us is the petitioner in O.P.No.1876 of 1999.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       2. The appellant is the employer. Respondent before us in the writ appeal<\/p>\n
is the workman.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       3. In O.P.No. 13853 of 2002, petitioner is the employer. Contesting<\/p>\n
respondent is the workman.\n<\/p>\n
       4. In O.P.No.1876 of 1999, the employer had called in question Exts.P5<\/p>\n
and P6 orders passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kannur, who is the<\/p>\n
competent authority under the provisions of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence<\/p>\n
Allowance Act, 1972 (the Act, for short).\n<\/p>\n
       5. The contesting respondent was an estate worker. He was kept under<\/p>\n
suspension in contemplation of the departmental enquiry on 25\/4\/1987.<\/p>\n
       6. The employer had appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into certain<\/p>\n
allegations made against the workman.              It is the stand of the workman that no<\/p>\n
orders were passed by the disciplinary authority on the report of the Enquiry<\/p>\n
Officer. However it is contended by the appellant’s learned counsel that after<\/p>\n
accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer an order of dismissal was passed and<\/p>\n
the same is served on the workman.\n<\/p>\n
 WA.1307\/08
\n& OP.3853\/2002                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
       7. The employer had also lodged a criminal complaint against the<\/p>\n
respondent workman, inter alia, alleging an offence of theft of the articles<\/p>\n
belonging to the employer.       At the time of hearing of this writ appeal and the<\/p>\n
Original Petition, we were informed by the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
parties that the jurisdictional Magistrate Court has given a clean chit to respondent<\/p>\n
No.1\/workman.\n<\/p>\n
       8. In the claim statement filed before the Deputy Labour Commissioner,<\/p>\n
the respondent-workman has stated that he had entrusted the matter to one Union<\/p>\n
for making an application for payment of subsistence allowance, as provided<\/p>\n
under the Act and since that Union had not taken effective steps, he had to change<\/p>\n
his membership and it is only the other Union that had taken effective steps to<\/p>\n
present an application for payment of the subsistence allowance under the Act.<\/p>\n
Along with the claim statement, the Union also had filed an application for<\/p>\n
condonation of delay in filing the application for payment of subsistence<\/p>\n
allowance.\n<\/p>\n
       9. After registering the claim statement, the Deputy Labour Commissioner<\/p>\n
had issued notice to the employee. The stand taken by the workman before the<\/p>\n
Deputy Labour commissioner was that the application filed by the petitioner is<\/p>\n
barred by limitation and the second contention was that after accepting the report<\/p>\n
of the Enquiry Officer,        the  disciplinary  authority   had passed an order<\/p>\n
dismissing the workman from service of the employer. Strangely, before the<\/p>\n
Deputy Labour Commissioner,       the employer had not produced a copy of the<\/p>\n
 WA.1307\/08
\n& OP.3853\/2002                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
order of the dismissal said to have been passed by them.<\/p>\n
       10. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, after condoning the delay in filing<\/p>\n
the application for payment of subsistence allowance, has directed the employer to<\/p>\n
pay subsistence allowance from 25\/4\/1987 to 28\/2\/1991 in a sum of Rs.21777.55<\/p>\n
and for the period from 1\/3\/1991 to 31\/7\/1993          in a sum of Rs.14355\/- in<\/p>\n
O.P.No.13853\/2002. By yet another order the Deputy Labour Commissioner has<\/p>\n
directed the employer to pay the subsistence allowance for the period from<\/p>\n
1\/8\/1993 to 30\/9\/1998 in a sum of Rs.77152\/- and the order so passed is the<\/p>\n
subject matter in O.P.No.13853 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
       11.    Aggrieved by the orders so passed by the Deputy Labour<\/p>\n
Commissioner, the employer was before this Court in O.P.NO.1876\/1999. The<\/p>\n
learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition and while doing so he was of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the Deputy Labour Commissioner has not committed any error<\/p>\n
whatsoever while passing the impugned orders. Aggrieved by the orders passed<\/p>\n
by the learned single Judge in O.P.No.1876\/1999, the employer is before us in<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1307\/2006.\n<\/p>\n
       12. Since the appeal was pending before this Court, the learned single<\/p>\n
Judge has also referred O.P.No.13853\/2002 for our consideration and decision.<\/p>\n
       13. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
       14. The appellant’s learned counsel would submit that the Deputy Labour<\/p>\n
Commissioner was not justified in condoning the delay in filing the application<\/p>\n
 WA.1307\/08
\n& OP.3853\/2002                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
for payment of subsistence allowance. Secondly, it is contended that the employer<\/p>\n
had passed an order of dismissal of the respondent\/workman from service and<\/p>\n
therefore the workman is not entitled to payment of subsistence allowance as<\/p>\n
envisaged under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      15. In order to answer the issues canvassed by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, it is appropriate for us to refer to the objects of the Act and the other<\/p>\n
relevant provisions.\n<\/p>\n
      16.   The object of the Act       is to provide the payment of subsistence<\/p>\n
allowances to the employees       in certain establishments during the period of<\/p>\n
suspension.    This is a social measure adopted by the State Government, the<\/p>\n
reason being that during the suspension period the employee should not suffer for<\/p>\n
want of food etc.<\/p>\n
      17. Section 4 of the Act provides for recovery of money due from an<\/p>\n
employer. The said provision is as under:\n<\/p>\n
                 “4.  Recovery     of   money     due    from   an<\/p>\n
                 employer:–Where any money is due to an<\/p>\n
                 employee from an employer under this Act, the<\/p>\n
                 employee of any other person authorised by<\/p>\n
                 him in this behalf, or in the case of the death of<\/p>\n
                 the employee, his legal representative may,<\/p>\n
                 without    prejudice to any other mode of<\/p>\n
                 recovery,   make     an    application    to   the<\/p>\n
                 Government in such manner as may be<\/p>\n
                 prescribed for the recovery of money due to<\/p>\n
 WA.1307\/08
\n& OP.3853\/2002                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
                 him, and if the government, after giving the<\/p>\n
                 employer an opportunity of being heard in such<\/p>\n
                 manner as may be prescribed, is satisfied, that<\/p>\n
                 any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate<\/p>\n
                 for that amount to the collector who shall<\/p>\n
                 proceed to recover the same in the same<\/p>\n
                 manner as an arrear of land revenue:\n<\/p>\n
                        Provided that every such application<\/p>\n
                 shall be made within one year from the date on<\/p>\n
                 which the money became due to the employee<\/p>\n
                 from the employer:\n<\/p>\n
                        Provided    further   that   any     such<\/p>\n
                 application may be entertained after the expiry<\/p>\n
                 of the said period of one year, if the<\/p>\n
                 Governments is satisfied that the applicant had<\/p>\n
                 sufficient cause for not making the application<\/p>\n
                 within the said period.”\n<\/p>\n
\n
      18.   Section 4 of the Act authorises a workman or any other person<\/p>\n
authorised     by him,     or in the case of death of an employee his legal<\/p>\n
representatives for    making an application before the State Government as<\/p>\n
provided under the Act for recovery of the amounts due from the employer. The<\/p>\n
section also states that if such an application is filed by the workman or his<\/p>\n
authorised representative or the legal representatives of the deceased workman,<\/p>\n
the State Governments shall afford an opportunity of hearing to all the parties<\/p>\n
and proceed to pass an appropriate order and then issue a certificate for that<\/p>\n
 WA.1307\/08
\n& OP.3853\/2002                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
amount to the Collector who will proceed to recover the amounts due as arrears of<\/p>\n
the land revenue.\n<\/p>\n
       19.    The first proviso appended to the Section stipulates that every<\/p>\n
application shall be made by the workman or his authorised representative or the<\/p>\n
legal representative of the deceased employee within one year from the date on<\/p>\n
which the money became due to the employee from the employer.<\/p>\n
       20.      The   second   proviso     gives   the  discretion   to   the    State<\/p>\n
Government\/Deputy Labour Commissioner to entertain the application, if it\/he is<\/p>\n
satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the application<\/p>\n
within the period stipulated under the first proviso to Section 4 of the Act.<\/p>\n
       21. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there<\/p>\n
was inordinate delay in filing the application for         payment of subsistence<\/p>\n
allowance as envisaged under the Act and therefore the Deputy Labour<\/p>\n
Commissioner was not justified in allowing the application.<\/p>\n
       22. As stated already, the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act<\/p>\n
is a social welfare measure given to an employee\/workman for payment of<\/p>\n
subsistence allowance during the period of suspension in contemplation of the<\/p>\n
departmental enquiry proceedings . Therefore the period of limitation prescribed<\/p>\n
under the Act requires to be liberally construed. Therefore the Legislature itself<\/p>\n
has incorporated proviso to Section 4 of the Act, giving discretion to the State<\/p>\n
Government\/Deputy Labour Commissioner to condone the delay, if any, in<\/p>\n
 WA.1307\/08
\n& OP.3853\/2002                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
making the application, if it\/he is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause<\/p>\n
in not preferring the application within the time prescribed under the first proviso<\/p>\n
to Section 4 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       23. In the instant case, the applicant has stated before the Deputy Labour<\/p>\n
Commissioner that he was a member of one Union and he had requested that<\/p>\n
Union to make an appropriate application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner<\/p>\n
for payment of subsistence allowance and in spite of his repeated requests, the said<\/p>\n
Union had not taken any steps to make any application before the Deputy Labour<\/p>\n
Commissioner and therefore he had changed his membership from that Union to<\/p>\n
another Union and that Union had filed an application for payment of subsistence<\/p>\n
allowance as envisaged under the Act. Therefore it is stated that there was some<\/p>\n
delay in filing the application and the same requires to be condoned.<\/p>\n
       24. Keeping in view the explanation offered by the applicant, the Deputy<\/p>\n
Labour Commissioner has condoned the delay and while doing so has assigned<\/p>\n
not only cogent but also appropriate reasons. Since the findings of the Deputy<\/p>\n
Labour Commissioner in that regard are not perverse, interference with those<\/p>\n
finding is not called for     in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution. Keeping that aspect of the matter in view, the learned single judge<\/p>\n
has rejected    the first contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/appellant.\n<\/p>\n
       25.    It was the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant that the<\/p>\n
 WA.1307\/08
\n& OP.3853\/2002                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent\/workman was dismissed from service on 8\/3\/1988 and therefore not<\/p>\n
entitled for payment of subsistence allowance. Though the said contention was<\/p>\n
taken before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the employer had not produced<\/p>\n
any orders passed by them. It is only before this Court that they had produced<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 order which is an order of dismissal of the respondent\/workman. It is the<\/p>\n
stand of the learned counsel for the respondent that the said order was not<\/p>\n
communicated to him at any point of time. Learned single Judge is satisfied that<\/p>\n
though an order might have been passed by the employer, the said order was never<\/p>\n
communicated to the respondent workman and therefore the workman is entitled<\/p>\n
for payment of subsistence allowance.\n<\/p>\n
       26. In our opinion, whenever an employer initiates departmental enquiry<\/p>\n
proceedings, the employer is expected to pay subsistence allowance to the<\/p>\n
workman. This view of ours is supported by the decision of the Apex Court in the<\/p>\n
case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr<\/a> .(`1999 (3) SCC<\/p>\n
679. In the said decision the Apex Court had held as under:<\/p>\n
                           “31. On joining government<\/p>\n
                  service, a person does not mortgage or<\/p>\n
                  barter    away his  basic   rights   as a<\/p>\n
                  human being, including his fundamental<\/p>\n
                  rights, in favour of the Government.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                  The Government, only because it has<\/p>\n
                  the power to appoint does not become<\/p>\n
                  the master of the body and soul of the<\/p>\n
                  employee. The Government by providing<\/p>\n
WA.1307\/08
\n& OP.3853\/2002                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
              job opportunities to its citizens only<\/p>\n
              fulfils  its   obligations  under    the<\/p>\n
              Constitution,  including  the  Directive<\/p>\n
              Principles    of State Policy.      The<\/p>\n
              employee, on taking up an employment<\/p>\n
              only agrees to subject himself to the<\/p>\n
              regulatory   measures    concerning  his<\/p>\n
              service.    His   association  with  the<\/p>\n
              Government or any other employer, like<\/p>\n
              instrumentalities of the Government or<\/p>\n
              statutory or autonomous corporation etc.<\/p>\n
              is regulated by the terms of contract<\/p>\n
              of service or service rules made by the<\/p>\n
              Central or the State Governments under<\/p>\n
              the proviso to Article 309<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
              Constitution or other statutory rules<\/p>\n
              including certified standing orders. The<\/p>\n
              fundamental rights, including the right<\/p>\n
              to life under       Article 21<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
              Constitution or the basic human rights<\/p>\n
              are not surrendered by the employee.\n<\/p>\n
              The provision      for    payment     of\n\n              subsistence    allowance made in the\n\n<\/pre>\n
              service rules only ensures non-violation<\/p>\n
              of the right to life of the employee.<\/p>\n
\n              That was the reason why this Court in<\/p>\n
              State of Maharashtra v.    Chandrabhan<\/p>\n
              Tale<\/a> ((1983) 3 SCC 387) struck down a<\/p>\n
              service rule which provided for payment<\/p>\n
 WA.1307\/08
\n& OP.3853\/2002                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
                  of a nominal amount of rupee one as<\/p>\n
                  subsistence allowance to an employee<\/p>\n
                  placed under suspension. This decision<\/p>\n
                  was followed in Fakirbhai         Fulabhai<\/p>\n
                  Solanki v. Presiding Officer<\/a> and it was<\/p>\n
                  held in that case that if an employee could<\/p>\n
                  not attend the departmental proceedings<\/p>\n
                  on account of financial stringencies<\/p>\n
                  caused by non-payment of subsistence<\/p>\n
                  allowance,    and    thereby   could     not<\/p>\n
                  undertake a journey away from his home<\/p>\n
                  to attend the departmental proceedings,<\/p>\n
                  the order of punishment, including the<\/p>\n
                  whole proceedings would stand vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
                  For this purpose, reliance was also<\/p>\n
                  placed   on    an    earlier  decision    in<\/p>\n
                  Ghanshyam Das Shrivastave v. State of<\/p>\n
                  M.P<\/a>.(1973) 1 SCC 656″\n<\/p>\n
       27. Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, in our opinion, the<\/p>\n
learned single Judge has rightly rejected the Original Petition filed by the employer<\/p>\n
thereby confirming the orders passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner.<\/p>\n
       28.   Having gone through the orders passed by the Deputy Labour<\/p>\n
Commissioner and also the orders passed by the learned single Judge, we are of<\/p>\n
the firm opinion that the learned single Judge has not committed any error<\/p>\n
 WA.1307\/08
\n& OP.3853\/2002                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
whatsoever. Therefore interference with the said order is not called for.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.<\/p>\n
       29. In view of the rejection of WA.No.1307\/2006, we have no other<\/p>\n
alternative but to reject O.P.No.13853\/2002 filed by the management questioning<\/p>\n
the orders passed     by the Deputy Labour Commissioner for the period from<\/p>\n
1\/8\/1993 to 30\/9\/1998.\n<\/p>\n
       Ordered accordingly.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                           H.L. DATTU\n                                                           Chief Justice\n\n\n\n                                                         A.K. BASHEER\n an.                                                              Judge\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Vayitri Plantations Ltd vs Mr.M.P.Ramankutty on 6 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 1307 of 2006() 1. THE VAYITRI PLANTATIONS LTD., … Petitioner Vs 1. MR.M.P.RAMANKUTTY, ESTATE WORKER, … Respondent 2. THE COURT OF AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 4 OF For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI For Respondent :SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR The […]<\/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-261625","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Vayitri Plantations Ltd vs Mr.M.P.Ramankutty on 6 November, 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-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Vayitri Plantations Ltd vs Mr.M.P.Ramankutty on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-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=\"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-06T21:22:21+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=\"12 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-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Vayitri Plantations Ltd vs Mr.M.P.Ramankutty on 6 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-06T21:22:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2376,\"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-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008\",\"name\":\"The Vayitri Plantations Ltd vs Mr.M.P.Ramankutty on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-06T21:22:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Vayitri Plantations Ltd vs Mr.M.P.Ramankutty on 6 November, 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 Vayitri Plantations Ltd vs Mr.M.P.Ramankutty on 6 November, 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-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Vayitri Plantations Ltd vs Mr.M.P.Ramankutty on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-06T21:22:21+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Vayitri Plantations Ltd vs Mr.M.P.Ramankutty on 6 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-06T21:22:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008"},"wordCount":2376,"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-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008","name":"The Vayitri Plantations Ltd vs Mr.M.P.Ramankutty on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-06T21:22:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vayitri-plantations-ltd-vs-mr-m-p-ramankutty-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Vayitri Plantations Ltd vs Mr.M.P.Ramankutty on 6 November, 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\/261625","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=261625"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261625\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}