{"id":262833,"date":"1985-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5"},"modified":"2015-09-11T16:12:32","modified_gmt":"2015-09-11T10:42:32","slug":"food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5","title":{"rendered":"Food Corporation Of India … vs Food Corporation Of India And … on 1 March, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Food Corporation Of India … vs Food Corporation Of India And … on 1 March, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 488, 1985 SCR (3) 150<\/div>\n
Author: V Khalid<\/div>\n
Bench: Khalid, V. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nFOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS' UNION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nFOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT01\/03\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nKHALID, V. (J)\nBENCH:\nKHALID, V. (J)\nDESAI, D.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1985 AIR  488\t\t  1985 SCR  (3) 150\n 1985 SCC  (2) 294\t  1985 SCALE  (1)383\n\n\nACT:\n       Contract\t Labour Regulation  and Abolition) Act, 1970\nSection 2 (1) (a) read with sections 2 (1) (e) 1(4) (a), (b)\nand Proviso  and 1(5)  (a) and (b) and the Explanation-Terms\n'appropriate Government',  clarified-Appropriate  Government\nfor the\t purposes of taking necessary steps under the Act of\n1970 to\t redress the  grievances  of  the  contract  labours\nworking with  the Food\tCorporation of India's establishment\nsituated in  the States\t is the\t respective State Government\nunder sub-section  2 of\t section 2  (a) and  not the Central\nGovernment-Canon of  statutory construction  explained-\t Any\nindustry carried on by or under the authority of the Central\nGovernment\" which  is in pari materia with Section 2 (a) (l)\nof the\tIndustrial Disputes  Act<\/a>, 1947, meaning of-Nature of\nrelief that can be qranted, outlined\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n       The Food Corporation of India has been entrusted with\nthe duty  of  procuring\t foodgrains  and  its  movement\t and\ndistribution throughout the country. The Corporation employs\nfor the discharge of this work three types of labourers; (1)\ndepartmentalised labour\t who are  its regular employees; (2)\ndirect paid labour; and (3) Contract labour who are employed\nby the\tCorporation through the intermediary of contractors.\nThe petitioners\t who come under the third category have been\ntrying\tto   pursuade  the   corporation   for\t progressive\ndepartmentalisation of\tits labour  Or\tin  the\t alternative\nextending to  them  the\t benefits  of  the  Contract  Labour\n(Regulation and\t Abolition) Act\t 1970. By this writ petition\nthey prayed  for a  writ of  mandamus either  to  the  Union\nGovernment or  to the concerned State Governments, to extend\nto them\t the benefits  of the  Act, for\t a direction  to the\ncorporation to\tpay them  the same  wages as are paid to the\ndepartmentalised labour\t and other  reliefs. The Corporation\npleaded that  the appropriate  Government for the purpose of\nthe claims  of the  petitioners working in its establishment\nin a  State a  is the concerned State Government and not the\nCentral Government,  which stand  was adopted  by  ihe\t15th\nRespondent State  of Madhya  Pradesh and the 21st Respondent\nState of  Punjab through  their\t respective  affidavits\t and\ntherefore disowned  its responsibility. The other States did\nnot file their counter at all.\n     Allowing the petition, the Court,\n151\n^\n       HELD: 1 Section 10<\/a> of the Contract Labour (Regulation\nand Abolition)\tAct, 1970 enables the appropriate Government\nby a  suitable notification  after making  a  study  of\t the\nconditions laid\t down  therein\tto  prohibit  employment  of\ncontract labour\t in any\t 'process, operation, or other work'\nin  any\t  establishment.  The  petitioners,  complaint\tthat\ndespite several disputes and representations made to all the\nState Governments as well as the Union of India, nothing has\nso fare\t been done  to give the benefit of Section 10<\/a> to the\ncontract labour in the Corporation by playing hide and seek,\none pointing  to the other as the appropriate Government for\nredressal of their grievances is justified. [155D - E]\n       2.1  On the  interpretation of  the relevant sections\nnamely, I  (4), 1  (5), 2  (1) (a)  and 2  (a)\t(e)  of\t the\nContract Labour Act<\/a>, 1970 read with section 2<\/a> (a) (1) of the\nIndustrial Disputes  Act<\/a>, 1947\t\"appropriate Government\" for\nthe purpose  of this case pertaining to the regional offices\nand warehouses\tof the\tFood Corporation  of  India  in\t the\nrespective States  is  the  State  Government  and  not\t the\nCentral Government. [161D]\n      2.2 Section 1(4)<\/a> deals with the application of the Act\nto  establishments   and  contractors\tanswering   to\t the\ndescription given therein and certainly the establishment of\nthe Food  Corporation and  the contractors  it employs\tcome\nwithin the ambit of the provisions of this Act. [156F]\n     2.3 Various warehouses, godowns and places alike sot up\nby the\tCorporation would  be establishments where the trade\nof the\tcorporation is\tbeing  carried\ton  and\t within\t the\nmeaning of  the term  \"establishment\" in  section 2<\/a>  (1) (e)\n(ii) of the Act. [158EI\n       2.4  It is  a  well-established\tcanon  of  statutory\nconstruction that  legislature is  known to  avoid tautology\nand redundancy. If Food Corporation of India was an industry\ncarried\t on  by\t or  under  the\t authority  of\tthe  Central\nGovernment, it\twould have  been comprehended  in the  first\npart of\t sub-section (1)  of Section  2<\/a>\t of  the  Industrial\nDisputes Act,  but that\t being\tnot  the  position,  it\t was\nspecifically referred  to by  name. However,  the expression\n'appropriate Government'  in the  Contract Labour  Act<\/a>, 1970\ndoes not  include by  name the\tFood Corporation of India as\nthe one in respect of which the appropriate Government would\nbe the\tCentral Government,  while it is mentioned so in the\ndefinition in  the Industrial  Disputes Act<\/a> even though both\nthe  statutes  use  the\t general  expression  'any  industry\ncarried\t on  by\t or  under  the\t authority  of\tthe  Central\nGovernment.' [169C - E]\n       2.5 Looking to the placement of the expression in the\ndefinition clause of the Contract Labour Act<\/a> and the purpose\nfor which  it  is  enacted,  the  expression  'any  industry\ncarried\t on  by\t or  under  the\t authority  of\tthe  Central\nGovernment' mean  'pursuant to\tthe authority, such as where\nan agent  or  a\t servant  acts\tunder  or  pursuant  to\t the\nauthority of  his principal  or master\t' Since\t the various\nestablishments of the Corporation do not pertain to any\n152\ncontrolled industry,  sub-clause (1)  of sub-section  (1) of\nsection 2<\/a> (a) of the Act is not attracted and therefore, the\ncase would  be governed\t by the\t residuary provision in sub-\nsection\t (2)   and  the\t  State\t Government   would  be\t the\nappropriate Government.\t Further in  the  counter  affidavit\nfiled by  `the Corporation  it is  stated that this question\nwas examined by the Labour Ministry which had clarified that\nthe  respective\t  State\t Governments  are  the\t'appropriate\nGovernments' for  the corporation's  establishments situated\nin the\tState. The  Union   of India  has correctly  taken a\nsimilar stand  and the\tStates of  Punjab and Madhya Pradesh\nhave also affirmed it. [160B; F;G; 161A-B]\n       Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. The State of Bihar\nand Ors<\/a>.,  11969] 3  SCR 995; Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh,\nNagpur v.  The Model  Mills, Nagpur  and Anr<\/a>.,\tAIR 1984  SC\n1813, applied.\n       3  In the  instant case,\t it will  not be possible or\nproper for  the Court  to grant\t the reliefs  prayed by\t the\npetitioner in full on the materials on record, the materials\nbeing  scanty\tand   insufficient   for   a   comprehensive\nadjudication of\t the claims  of\t the  petitioners.  The\t Act<\/a>\ncontains provisions  enabling the  appropriate Government to\nget reports  as to  how to  implement the  provisions of the\nAct. The  machinery provided  for by  the Act  has not\tbeen\nbrought into  action in any State except the State of Madhya\nPradesh. Therefore  the course open lo the Court is to issue\nappropriate direction to the State Governments except Madhya\nPradesh State  to constitute committees within three months,\nunder section  5<\/a> of the Act to make necessary enquiries, and\nto submit a report within four months of its constitution as\nto whether  it would  be possible to abolish contract labour\nin the Corporation altogether. [161 F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
   ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 13508 of 1983
\n       (Under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution of India)
\n     C. S. Vaidyanathan for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
       Krishan\tDayal, N.C. Talukdar, R.N. Poddar, Y P. Rao,
\nA.K Sanghi and R. K. Mehta for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n       KHALID,\tJ. This\t is representative action brought on
\nbehalf of  the Contract\t ‘Labourers, working  with the\tFood
\nCorporation of\tIndia, the  first  respondent  in  the\twrit
\npetition, distressed  by the  unhelpful attitude of both the
\nCentral and  the State\tGovernment in  not redressing  their
\ngrievances for\teither\tdepartmentalising  them\t or  in\t the
\nalternative extending  to them\tthe benefit  of the Contract
\nLabour (Regulation  and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short ‘The
\nAct<\/a>‘).\n<\/p>\n
153<\/span><\/p>\n
The petitioners\t complaint is that the Central and the State
\nGovernments play hide and seek, one pointing to the other as
\nthe appropriate\t Government under  the provisions of the Act
\nand thus denying to them what is their dues.\n<\/p>\n
       2.  The first  respondent is  the Food Corporation of
\nIndia (herein  after called  ‘The Corporation’);  the second
\nrespondent: Union  of India,  the  third  respondent:  Chief
\nLabour Commissioner  (Central)\tand  respondents  4  to\t 22,
\nvarious\t State\t Governments.  The   Corporation  has\tbeen
\nentrusted  by\tthe  second  respondent\t with  the  duty  of
\nprocuring food\tgrains and  its\t movement  and\tdistribution
\nthroughout the\tcountry. The  corporation  employs  for\t the
\ndischarge  of  this  work  three  types\t of  labourers:\t (1)
\ndepartmentalised labour\t who are  its regular employees; (2)
\ndirect paid labour; and (3) contract labour who are employed
\nby the\tCorporation through the intermediery of contractors.
\nThe petitioners have been trying to pursuade the Corporation
\nfor progressive\t departmantalisation of\t its  labour.  They,
\nhowever, did  not succeed.  Their grievance is that even the
\nlimited benefits  available to\tthem under the provisions of
\nthe Act\t have not  been\t extended  to  them.  By  this\twrit
\npetition they  pray, for  a writ  of mandamus  either to the
\nUnion Government  or to\t the State Governments, to extend to
\nthem the  benefits of  the  Act,  for  a  direction  to\t the
\nCorporation to\tpay them  the same  wages as are paid to the
\ndepartmentalised labour and for other reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
     3. In a detailed counter-affidavit, the Corporation has
\npleaded that  the appropriate  Government for the propose of
\nthe claims  of the  petitioners is  the State Government and
\nnot the\t Central Government,  and that it is not practicable
\nfor the Corporation to employ the labour whom the petitioner
\nrepresent as  departmental labour  since the  nature of\t the
\noperations are\tseasonal, sporadic and varied from region to
\nregion, that  the work\tof  the\t Corporation  fluctuates  in
\nvolume at different places and at different points depending
\nupon the  procurement, movement and off take of food grains.
\nIt is  farther stated  that it\tis not easy for abolition of
\nContract labour employed by the Corporation since other like
\norganisations connected\t with the  Government of  India also
\nempley contract\t labourers and\thence abolition\t af contract
\nlabour cannot be consideder in isolation for the Corporation
\nalone. Among  the State\t Governments:, the  15th  respondent
\n(the State  of Madhya  Pradesh) and the 21st respondent (the
\nState  of  Punjab)  have  filed\t their\trespective  counter-
\naffidavits.\n<\/p>\n
154<\/span><\/p>\n
       4.  In its  counter –  affidavits the State of Madhya
\nPradesh has  stated that  the said  Government\thave  framed
\nrules under the Act (which came into force on 10.2 1971) for
\nimplementation of  its provisions,  that the  Act  is  being
\nimplemented in\tits entirety  in the said State, that it has
\nconstituted an\tindependent State  Advisory Contract  Labour
\nBoard which  was  advising  the\t State\tGovernment  on\tsuch
\nmatters as  are referred to it, that it has also constituted
\na committee  on 31st  March 1981  in exercise  of the powers
\nconferred on  it under Section 5<\/a> of the Act, and that in the
\ncase of\t 22 branches,  prosecutions were  launched for\tnon-
\ncompliance with the provisions of the Act
\n       5  In the  Counter –  affidavit filed  on  behalf  of
\nrespondent No.\t21, (the  State of Punjab) it is stated that
\nthe appropriate\t Government for\t the purpose  of the Act for
\nthe regional  office of the Corporation in the Punjab State,
\nis the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
     6. Before considering the claims of the petitioners, we
\nwill have a look at some of the provisions of the Act, which
\nif properly  implemented would\thave,  in  some\t measure  at
\nleast, satisfied  the labour. Section 10<\/a> of the Act reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t       ” 10.  Prohibition of  employment af contract
\nlabour-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (1) Notwithstanding  anything\t contained  in\tthis
\n     Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation
\n     with the  Central Board or, as the case may be, a State
\n     Board,  prohibit,\t by  notification  in  the  Official
\n     Gazette, employment  of contract  labour in any process
\n     operation or other work in any establishment.
\n\t  (2) Before  issuing any  notification\t under\tsub-
\n     section  (l)  in  relation\t to  an\t establishment,\t the
\n     appropriate  Government   shall  have   regard  to\t the
\n     conditions of  work and  a benefits  provided  for\t the
\n     contract  labour\tin  that   establishment  and  other
\n     relevant factors. such as-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a) whether  the process,  operation or other
\n     work is  incidental to  or necessary  for the industry,
\n     trade, business,  manufacture  or\toccupation  that  is
\n     carried on in the establishment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
155<\/span><\/p>\n
\t       (b) whether  it is  of perennial nature, that
\n     is to  say, it  is so  of\tsufficient  duration  having
\n     regard to\tthe nature  of\tindustry,  trade,  business,
\n     manufacture  or   occupation   carried   on   in\tthat
\n     establishment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (c) whether  it is  done\t ordinarily  through
\n     regular   workmen\t in   that   establishment   or\t  an
\n     establishment similar thereto;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (d)  whether   it  is  sufficient  to  employ
\n     considerable number of whole time workmen.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Explanation-If  a   question\tarises\twhether\t any
\n     process or\t operation or  other work  is  of  perennial
\n     nature, the  decision  of\tthe  appropriate  Government
\n     thereon shall be final.’
\n       This  section enables the appropriate Government by a
\nsuitable notification after making a study of the conditions
\nlaid down  therein 1)  to prohibit  employment\tof  contract
\nlabour in  any ‘process,  operation or\tother work’  in\t any
\nestablishment. The  petitioners grievance  is  that  despite
\nseveral disputes  and representations  made to all the State
\nGovernments as\twell as\t the Union  of India, nothing has so
\nfar been  done to  give the  benefit of\t Section  10<\/a>  to  be
\ncontract labour\t in the\t Corporation. This complaint appears
\nto be justified.\n<\/p>\n
       7. We will now examine the relevant provisions of the
\nAct  to\t  find\tout  as\t to  which  are\t the  industries  or
\nestablishments to  which the  Act applies  and which  is the
\nappropriate Government\tin its\tcontemplation,\ton  whom  is
\nentrusted the  duty to\tameliorate the conditions of labour.
\nWe read\t Section 1(4)<\/a>  (a), (b) and Proviso and Section 1(5)<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
(a) and (b) and the Explanation:\n<\/p>\n
     “1(4) It applies:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  to every  establishment in  which twenty  or\tmore
\n\t  workmen are  employed or  were employed on any day
\n\t  of the preceding twelve months contract labour;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  to every  contractor who  employs or who employ ed
\n\t  on any  day of  the preceding twelve months twenty
\n\t  or more workmen;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
156<\/span><\/p>\n
       Provided\t that the  appropriate Government may. after
\ngiving not  less than two months’ notice of its intention so
\nto do,\tby notification\t in the\t Official Gazette, apply the
\nprovisions of  this Act\t to any\t establishment or contractor
\nemploying such\tnumber of workmen less than twenty as may be
\nspecified in the notification.\n<\/p>\n
       (5)(a)  It shall not apply to establishments in which
\nwork only of an intermittent or casual nature is performed.\n<\/p>\n
       (b) If a question arises whether work performed in an
\nestablishment is  of an\t intermittent or  casual nature, the
\nappropriate Government\tshall  decide  that  question  after
\nconsultation with  the Central Board or, as the case may be,
\na State Board, and its decision shall be final.\n<\/p>\n
      Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-section, work
\nper formed  in an establishment shall not be deemed to be of
\nan intermittant nature.\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  if it\t was performed for more than one hundred and
\n\t  twenty days in the preceding twelve months, or\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) if it\t is of a seasonal character and is performed
\n\t  for more than sixty days in a year.”\n<\/p>\n
       Section 1(4)<\/a> deals with the application of the Act to
\nestablishments and  contractors answering to the description
\ngiven therein.\tIt was\tnot  disputed  before  us  that\t the
\nestablishment in  question and\tthe contractors\t it  employs
\ncome within  the  ambit\t of  the  provisions  of  this\tAct.
\nHowever, an  investigation is  necessary to  collect factual
\ndetails to  ascertain whether  the Corporation\tcomes within
\nthe exemption indicated in clause 1(5) quoted above.\n<\/p>\n
       8.    Section 3<\/a> speaks of a Central Advisory Board to
\nadvise
\n the  Central Government  on  matters  arising\tout  of\t the
\nadministration of  the Act and Section 4<\/a> speaks similarly of
\nState Advisory\tBoards. Section\t 5<\/a> confers  on\tthe  Central
\nBoard or  the State  Boards as\tthe case may be the power to
\nconstitute committees  for the\tproper implementation of the
\nprovisions of  the Act.\t Section 7<\/a>  requires registration of
\nestablishments\tto   which  the\t  Act\tapplies.   On\tsuch
\nregistration, the  principal employer will get a certificate
\nof
\n157<\/span>
\nregistration containing\t the necessary\tparticulars. Chapter
\nIV deals  with the  licence of\ta contractor  and Chapter V.
\nwith the  welfare and health of the contract labour. Chapter
\nVI deals with penalties and procedure.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    The petitioners case is that though the Act came
\ninto force  on 10-2-1971 no contractor has complied with the
\nprovisions of  the Act\tand each of them has by infringement
\nof the\tprovisions of  the Act rendered themselves liable to
\nbe prosecuted. Since the contractors have not got themselves
\nlicenced, the  labourers find  it difficult  to\t invoke\t the
\nrelevant provisions  of the  Rules to secure the benefits to
\nthem under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       10.   Now the question as to which is the appropriate
\nGovernment for\tthe implementation  of the provisions of the
\nprovisions of  the Act\tcan be considered.A decision on this
\nquestion is  necessary before any direction can be issued in
\nthis writ  petition. The  State Governments, except those of
\nState of  Madhya Pradesh  and Punjab,  have not\t filed their
\ncounter affidavits.  In the  writ petition  the\t petitioners
\nhave indicated\tthat the  Central and  the State Governments
\nhave taken up conflicting stand on this question.\n<\/p>\n
       11.    ‘Appropriate Government’ is defined in Section
\n2(1)<\/a> (a) of the Act to read as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “2(1) (a) “Appropriate Government means,:
\n     (1) in relation to-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (1)  any establishment  pertaining to any industry
\n\t       carried on  by or  under the authority of the
\n\t       Central Government, or pertaining to any such
\n\t       controlled industry  as may  be specified  in
\n\t       this behalf by the Central Government, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) any establishment  of any  railway Cantonment
\n\t       Board, major port, mine or oil field, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    (iii)any establishment of a banking or insurance
\n\t       company,
\n     (2) the Central Government,
\n158<\/span>
\n\t       in relation  to any  other establishment\t the
\n\t       Government of  the State\t in which that other
\n\t       establishment is situated.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       A bare reading will show that sub-cls. (ii) and (iii)
\nof sec.\t 2(1) (a)  are\tnot  attracted\tin  this  case.\t The
\nquestion then  is  whether  various  establishments  of\t the
\nCorporation spread  all over the country could be said to be
\nestablishments pertaining  to any  industry carried on by or
\nunder the  authority of the Central Government or pertaining
\nto any\tsuch controlled industry as may be specified in this
\nbehalf by  the Central\tGovernment. Before  we determine the
\nwidth and ambit of sub-cl. (i) of sub-sec. (I) of sec. 2 (1)\n<\/p>\n
(a), it\t would be advantageous to refer to the definition of
\n‘establishment’ set out in sec. 2 (I)(e). It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “2(1) (e)- Establishment means-<\/p>\n
\t  (i)  any office or department of the Government or
\n\t       a local authority, or\n<\/p>\n
\t  (ii) any place wher
\ne any  industry, trade,\t business, manufacture or occupation
\n\t       is carried on.\n<\/p>\n
      ” We would be concerned with sub-cl (ii) of Sec. 2 (1)\n<\/p>\n
(e) which  provides  that  the\testablishment  would  be  an
\nestablishment\twhere\tany   industry,\t  trade,   business,
\nmanufacture  or\t occupation  is\t carried  on.  Thus  various
\nwarehouses,  godowns   and  place   alike  set\t up  by\t the
\nCorporation would  be establishments  where the trade of the
\nCorporation is\tbeing carried on. Could these establishments
\nbe said\t to be\tpertaining to  an industry  carried on by or
\nunder the  authority of\t the Central  Government ? Before we
\nfind out  correct meaning  of the  expression ‘any  industry
\ncarried\t on  by\t or  under  the\t authority  of\tthe  Central
\nGovernment’, it\t is  necessary\tto  draw  attention  to\t the
\ndefinition of  appropriate Government’ as set out in Section
\n2(a)<\/a>  (1)  of  the  Industrial\tDisputes  Act<\/a>,\t1947,  which
\nprovides  that\t ‘appropriate  Government’   means:  (i)  in
\nrelation to  any industrial  dispute concerning any industry
\ncarried on  by or  under the authority of Central Government
\n(omitting the  words not  necessary for the present purpose.
\nOr in  relation to an industrial dispute concerning the Food
\nCorporation Or India established under section 3<\/a>. Or a Board
\nof Management established for two or more
\n159<\/span>
\ncontiguous States  under Section  16<\/a> of the Food Corporation
\nAct, 1964. .., the Central Government. Obviously, therefore,
\nfor  the  purpose  of  Industrial  Disputes  Act<\/a>,  1947,  in
\nrelation to  any  industrial  dispute  concerning  the\tFood
\nCorporation  of\t  India,  the\tCentral\t Government  is\t the
\nappropriate Government, There is an express reference to the
\nFood Corporation  of India. If the Food Corporation of India
\nwas an\testablishment in  an industry carried on by or under
\nthe  authority\tof  the\t Central  Government,  it  would  be
\ntautologous to specifically refer it and include it. It is a
\nwell  established   canon  of  statutory  construction\tthat
\nlegislature is\tknown to  avoid tautology and redundancy. If
\nFood Corporation  of India  was an industry carried on by or
\nunder the authority of the Central Government, it would have
\nbeen comprehended  in the  first part of sub-section (1) but
\nthat being not the position, it was specifically referred to
\nby name. Having examined this definition, it is necessary to
\nbring to  fore the contra-distinction between the definition
\nof the expression ‘appropriate Government’ in the Industrial
\nDisputes Act<\/a>,  1947 and\t the definition\t in  the  Act  under
\nexamination. It\t may be\t pointed out  that the expression in
\nthe Act\t does not  include by  name the\t Food Corporation of
\nIndia as  the  one  in\trespect\t of  which  the\t appropriate
\nGovernment would  be the  Central Government,  while  it  is
\nmentioned so  in the  definition in  the Industrial Disputes
\nAct<\/a> even though both the statutes use the general expression
\n‘any industry  carried on  by or  under the authority of the
\nCentral Government.\n<\/p>\n
       12.    Having noticed this contra-distinction, let us
\nexamine\t the  width  and  content  of  the  expression\t‘any
\nindustry carried on by or under the authority of the Central
\nGovernment’. The  matter is  no more  resintegra.  In  Heavy
\nEngineering Mazdoor  Union v. The State of Bihar and Ors<\/a>.(1)
\nthis Court held that the expression ‘any industry carried on
\nby or under the authority of the Central Government’ as used
\nin the\tdefinition of expression ‘appropriate Government’ in
\nSection 2(a)<\/a> (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act<\/a>, 1947, would
\nmean ‘pursuant to the authority, such as where an agent or a
\nservant acts  under or\tpursuant to  the  authority  of\t his
\nprincipal or  master.’ This  Court took\t notice of  the fact
\nthat the  entire share\tcapital\t of  the  Heavy\t Engineering
\nCorporation Ltd,  was contributed  by the Central Government
\nand extensive powers were conferred on it and
\n (1) [1969]- 3 SCR 995
\n160<\/span>
\nyet the\t Corporation was none other than a company and could
\nnot be\tsaid to\t be an\tindustry carried  on by or under the
\nauthority of  the Central  Government. Therefore,  the\tcase
\nwould be covered by the residuary clause and the appropriate
\nGovernment was\theld to\t be the\t State\tGovernment  and\t the
\nreference under\t Section 10<\/a>  made by  the State of Bihar was
\nheld valid  and competent.  Looking to\tthe placement of the
\nexpression in  the definition  clause of  the  Act  and\t the
\npurpose\t for  which  it\t is  enacted,  the  expression\t‘any
\nindustry carried on by or under the authority of the Central
\nGovernment’ must receive the same interpretation as was done
\nin the\taforementioned case.  In a  recent decision  of this
\nCourt in  Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur v. The Model
\nMills, Nagpur and Anr<\/a>.,(l) to which both of us were parties,
\nwhile interpreting  more or  less  an  identical  expression
\noccurring in  Section 32(IV)<\/a>  of the  Bonus Act,  1965, this
\nCourt held  that in  relation to  an undertaking  in textile
\nindustry in  respect of\t which an  authorised controller was
\nappointed   under   the\t  provisions   of   the\t  Industrial
\n(Development and  Regulation)  Act<\/a>,  1951,  the\t appropriate
\nGovernment was\tthe State  Government and  not\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  observing\tthat  even   where   an\t  authorised
\ncontroller is appointed by the Central Government. it merely
\nsubstitutes Board  of Director\tof a  company  managing\t the
\nindustrial undertaking by an authorised controller appointed
\nby the Central Government, but the undertaking none-the-less
\nremains an under  taking managed under the provisions of the
\nCompanies Act<\/a>,\t1956, and  it could  not be  said to  be  an
\nundertaking in\tany industry  carried on  by  or  under\t the
\nauthority of the Central Government. The same approach holds
\ngood for  the purpose of construction of the expression ‘any
\nindustry carried on by or under the authority of the Central
\nGovernment’ under  the Act. Let it be made clear that it was
\nnot  suggested\t that  the  various  establishments  of\t the
\nCorporation pertain  to any controlled industry. ‘therefore,
\nsub-clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2(a)<\/a> of the Act
\nis not\tattracted and  therefore, the case would be governed
\nby the\tresiduary provision in sub-section (2) and the State
\nGovernment would be the appropriate  Government.\n<\/p>\n
       13.     The question  as to which is the ‘appropriate
\nGovernment has\tbeen briefly  dealt  with  in  the  counter-
\naffidavits filed by the Corporation, State of Madhya Pradesh
\nand the\t State of  Punjab. In the counter-affidavit filed by
\nthe Corporation, it is stated that this
\n(1) AIR 1984 SC 1813
\n161<\/span>
\nquestion was  examined by  the Labour  Ministry and that the
\nsaid  Ministry\thad  clarified\tthat  the  respective  State
\nGovernments  are   the\t‘appropriate  Governments’  for\t the
\nCorporation’s establishments  situated in  the\tStates.\t The
\nUnion of  India, the  second  respondent,  in  its  counter-
\naffidavit has  also taken  the stand  that the\t‘appropriate
\nGovernment’ for\t the purpose  of  the  Zonal  establishments
\nsituated in  the respective  States is\tthe State Government
\nand not the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
       The  State of  Punjab and the State of Madhya Pradesh
\nhave also stated in their respective counter-affidavits that
\nthe ‘appropriate  Government’ for the purpose of the Act for
\nthe regional  offices of the Corporation in their respective
\nStates\tis   the  State\t  Government.  These  pleadings\t are
\nindicative of the fact that the State Governments understood
\nthem to\t be  the  ‘appropriate\tGovernment’  for  the  Zonal
\noffices in their respective State.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn  the\t interpretation\t of  the  relevant  Sections
\nextracted above,  we hold  that the ‘appropriate Government’
\nfor the\t purpose of  this case\tpertaining to  the  regional
\noffices and  the warehouses  in the respective States is the
\nState Government and not the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
     14.   However, we are of the opinion that it may not be
\npossible or proper for us to grant the reliefs prayed for by
\nthe petitioner\tin full\t on the\t materials  on\trecord.\t The
\nmaterials are  scanty and  insufficient for  a comprehensive
\nadjudication of\t the claims  of the petitioners and to grant
\nthem reliefs  as prayed\t for. The  Act<\/a>\tcontains  provisions
\nenabling the  ‘appropriate Government’\tto get reports as to
\nhow to\timplement the  provisions of  the Act. The machinery
\nprovided for  by the Act has not been brought into action in
\nany State  except the  State of\t Madhya Pradesh. Under these
\ncircumstances. the  only course\t open  to  us  is  to  issue
\nappropriate direction to the State Governments to constitute
\ncommittees under  Section 5<\/a>  of the  Act, to  make necessary
\nenquiries, and\tto submit a report as to whether it would be
\npossible to  abolish  contract\tlabour\tin  the\t Corporation
\naltogether In so doing, we will have to exclude the State of
\nMadhya Pradesh\tbecause the  counter-affidavit filed by that
\nState shows  that necessary  action is being taken under the
\nAct. Accordingly  a writ  of mandamus  will be issued to all
\nthe State Governments except the State of Madhya Pradesh for
\nappointing a  committee under  Section 5<\/a>  of the  Act within
\nthree months from
\n162<\/span>
\ntoday to  enquire whether contract labour in the Corporation
\nshould be  abolished. The  committee shall  submit a  report
\nwithin four months of its constitution and the Government is
\ndirected to  take action  on such  report within  two months
\nthereafter. The\t necessary expenses  for the committees will
\nbe borne  by  the  Corporation.\t Since\tthe  Madhya  Pradesh
\nGovernment has\talready constituted committees under Section
\n5<\/a>, the\tsaid State  is directed\t to ask\t the  committees  so
\nappointed to  make its\treport\texpeditiously  and  to\ttake
\nappropriate action  on the  report as  indicated above.\t The
\nCorporation will be at liberty to place materials before the
\ncommittees whether it comes within the exemption clause. The
\nwrit petition  is allowed  as indicated\t above with costs to
\nthe petitioner\tquantified at  Rs. 2,000  pay  able  by\t the
\nCorporation.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t   Petition allowed.\n163<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Food Corporation Of India … vs Food Corporation Of India And … on 1 March, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 488, 1985 SCR (3) 150 Author: V Khalid Bench: Khalid, V. (J) PETITIONER: FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS’ UNION Vs. RESPONDENT: FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT01\/03\/1985 BENCH: […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-262833","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFood Corporation Of India ... vs Food Corporation Of India And ... on 1 March, 1985 - 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\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Food Corporation Of India ... vs Food Corporation Of India And ... on 1 March, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5\" \/>\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=\"1985-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-11T10:42:32+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Food Corporation Of India … vs Food Corporation Of India And … on 1 March, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-11T10:42:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5\"},\"wordCount\":3420,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5\",\"name\":\"Food Corporation Of India ... vs Food Corporation Of India And ... on 1 March, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-11T10:42:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Food Corporation Of India … vs Food Corporation Of India And … on 1 March, 1985\"}]},{\"@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":"Food Corporation Of India ... vs Food Corporation Of India And ... on 1 March, 1985 - 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\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Food Corporation Of India ... vs Food Corporation Of India And ... on 1 March, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-11T10:42:32+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Food Corporation Of India … vs Food Corporation Of India And … on 1 March, 1985","datePublished":"1985-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-11T10:42:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5"},"wordCount":3420,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5","name":"Food Corporation Of India ... vs Food Corporation Of India And ... on 1 March, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-11T10:42:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-food-corporation-of-india-and-on-1-march-1985-5#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Food Corporation Of India … vs Food Corporation Of India And … on 1 March, 1985"}]},{"@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\/262833","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=262833"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262833\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262833"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}