{"id":265922,"date":"2009-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009"},"modified":"2015-04-25T10:51:22","modified_gmt":"2015-04-25T05:21:22","slug":"management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Management Of M\/S. Dalmia Cement vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Management Of M\/S. Dalmia Cement vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 January, 2009<\/div>\n
C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                            -1-\n\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                 CHANDIGARH\n\n                                       C.W.P.No.545 of 1986\n                                       Date of Decision:- 27.01.2009\n\nManagement of M\/s. Dalmia Cement\n(Bharat) Ltd., Ballabgarh, Haryana                ....Petitioner(s)\n\n\n                    vs.\n\nState of Haryana and others                       ....Respondent(s)\n\n                    ***\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH\n\n                    ***\n\nPresent:-     Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner.\n\n              Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.\n\n              Mr.R.S.Sihota, Sr.Advocate with\n              Mr.H.P.S.Ishar, Advocate for respondent No.2.\n\n                    ***\n\nAUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
              Through this order, I propose to decide C.W.P.No.545 of 1986<\/p>\n
and 546 of 1986 (Management of M\/s.Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.,<\/p>\n
Ballabhgarh, (Haryana) vs. State of Haryana and others) wherein the<\/p>\n
petitioner has challenged award dated 12.4.1985 (Annexure P-1) passed<\/p>\n
by      the   Industrial Tribunal, Haryana Faridabad,        holding that the<\/p>\n
termination    of   services   of   respondent   No.3-workman was neither<\/p>\n
justified nor in order and as such, he was entitled to reinstatement but<\/p>\n
without back-wages from the respondent for the reasons given under issue<\/p>\n
No.3.\n<\/p>\n
              For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from
\n C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                           -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
C.W.P.No.545 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
            In the claim statement filed on 23.11.1981, the workman has<\/p>\n
stated that he was employed by the petitioner-management but his services<\/p>\n
were terminated without any prior notice, charge-sheet or enquiry and<\/p>\n
further that no compensation as per the Industrial Disputes Act<\/a>, 1947 were<\/p>\n
granted to him, which would vitiate termination order being illegal, thereby<\/p>\n
entitling the workman to reinstatement with full back-wages. The stand of<\/p>\n
the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court was that there was no<\/p>\n
relationship of employer and employee between the parties.               The<\/p>\n
Management did not terminate the services of the claimant. The services of<\/p>\n
the workman were terminated by M\/s. Telesound India             Ltd., as per<\/p>\n
Certified Standing   Order No.16,     applicable   to the establishment on<\/p>\n
account of his continued and unauthorized absence for more than 8 days.<\/p>\n
The scheme of amalgamation of M\/s. Telesound India Ltd. with Dalima<\/p>\n
Cement (Bharat) Limited was sanctioned by the High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n
according to which      no liability had been placed on the petitioner-<\/p>\n
Management vis-a-vis. the employee of M\/s. Telesound India Limited who<\/p>\n
was not the employee of the said Company on the date on which the order<\/p>\n
of the Delhi High Court sanctioning the scheme of Amalgamation was<\/p>\n
passed, on 5.11.1980\/5.12.1980. Another ground which was taken by the<\/p>\n
petitioner-management was that the claim has been made by the respondent-<\/p>\n
workman in the year 1981 i.e. after a lapse of 8 years from the date his name<\/p>\n
was removed from the rolls of establishment by M\/s. Telesound India<\/p>\n
Limited, Ballabhgarh, as the date of termination of the respondent is dated<\/p>\n
1.9.1973. The claim, therefore, is highly belated and the reference is not<\/p>\n
maintainable. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues
\n C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                         -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
were framed by the Labour Court:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “(1) Whether there was a relationship of employee and<\/p>\n
                  employer between the parties? OPW.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (2)Whether the Management was liable for the claim of<\/p>\n
                    the workman in view of the order of Hon’ble Delhi<\/p>\n
                    High Court. OPW.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (3) Whether the claim was belated and if so, to what<\/p>\n
                    effect? OPM.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (4) Whether the termination of services of Shri Shish<\/p>\n
                    Ram was justified and in order? If not, to what relief<\/p>\n
                    is he entitled? OPM.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
            On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Labour<\/p>\n
Court has answered the reference in favour of the workman and against the<\/p>\n
petitioner-management.\n<\/p>\n
            Counsel for the petitioner-management contends that the award<\/p>\n
dated 12.4.1985 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court is not in<\/p>\n
accordance with law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. He submits<\/p>\n
that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the<\/p>\n
petitioner-management and respondent No.2-workman.        He submits that<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 was never the employee of the petitioner-Management.<\/p>\n
He states that the petitioner, on the basis of the order dated 5.11.1980<\/p>\n
passed by the High Court of Delhi, came into picture and as per the Scheme<\/p>\n
of Amalgamation as sanctioned by the Court became the successor of M\/s<\/p>\n
Telesound India Limited. He submits that the workman was employed by<\/p>\n
Telesound India Limited and his services were terminated on 1.9.1973 also<\/p>\n
by M\/s. Telesound India Limited. As per clause (12) of the Scheme of
\n C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                           -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Amalgamation the liability of the petitioner with regard to the employees of<\/p>\n
the transferor company i.e. M\/s.Telesound India Limited was specified.<\/p>\n
He submits that during the proceedings before the Delhi High Court, list of<\/p>\n
137 employees (Annexure P-4) was produced which was taken to be the<\/p>\n
employee strength on the date of approval of the scheme of amalgamation<\/p>\n
by the Delhi High Court i.e. 5.11.1980. On this basis, he submits that as on<\/p>\n
the date of amalgamation, respondent No.3 was not an employee of the<\/p>\n
transferor company.    The petitioner-management company was not his<\/p>\n
employer nor was the respondent its employee. Clause (12) of the Scheme<\/p>\n
of Amalgamation is reproduced here-in-below:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “12. All the employees of the Transferor Company on the<\/p>\n
                  date on which the order of the Court sanctioning the<\/p>\n
                  scheme is passed, will become the employees of the<\/p>\n
                  transferee company with effect from the Transfer Date<\/p>\n
                  without any break or interruption in service and on terms<\/p>\n
                  and conditions not less favourable to them.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
He states that M\/s. Telesound India Limited has not been impleaded as a<\/p>\n
party respondent and, therefore, the reference would not survive because<\/p>\n
claim, if any, was against M\/s. Telesound India Limited which had<\/p>\n
employed the workman and had terminated his services.<\/p>\n
            On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman<\/p>\n
submits that as per clause (2) of the Scheme of Amalgamation on the date<\/p>\n
of transfer, all debts, liabilities, duties and obligations of the transferor<\/p>\n
company stood transferred to the transferee company and in the light of this,<\/p>\n
the claim of the respondent-workman would lie against the petitioner as it<\/p>\n
has stepped into the shoes of the original employer. Clause (2) of the
\n C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                             -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
scheme of amalgamation is reproduced herein below:-<\/p>\n
                   “2. With effect from the Transfer Date, all debts,<\/p>\n
                   liabilities, duties   and obligations of the Transferor<\/p>\n
                   Company shall stand transferred without any further act<\/p>\n
                   or deed to the Transferee Company pursuant to the<\/p>\n
                   provisions of Section 394<\/a> of the said Act, so as to<\/p>\n
                   become the debts, liabilities and duties and obligations of<\/p>\n
                   the Transferee Company. It is hereby made clear that<\/p>\n
                   mortgages\/charges created by “Telesound” on its assets<\/p>\n
                   in favour of the secured creditors will continue after the<\/p>\n
                   “Transfer Date” on the assets of “Telesound” taken over<\/p>\n
                   by “Dalmia Cement” and the said morgages and charges<\/p>\n
                   will not be extended to the assets of other Divisions and<\/p>\n
                   undertakings of “Dalmia Cement”. It is hereby further<\/p>\n
                   clarified that neither “Dalmia Cement” nor any of its<\/p>\n
                   Directors and Officers will be liable or responsible in<\/p>\n
                   any way for the omissions, commissions and statutory<\/p>\n
                   defaults made by “Telesound” upto the date of its<\/p>\n
                   amalgamation with “Dalmia Cement”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
             Counsel for the petitioner in response to this assertion of the<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent states that clause (2) deals     with the financial<\/p>\n
liabilities of the transferor company and the transferee company.            He<\/p>\n
submits that where there is a specific clause (12) dealing with the<\/p>\n
employees, the same would hold the field and nothing more and nothing<\/p>\n
less can be read into it. All rights and liabilities as far as the employees are<\/p>\n
concerned, would flow from clause (12) of the Scheme. Since clause (12)
\n C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                            -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
specifically states that all the employees of the transferor company on the<\/p>\n
date on which the order of the Court sanctioning the scheme is passed, will<\/p>\n
become the employees of the transferee company with effect from the<\/p>\n
transfer date and the respondent not being in service of the transferor<\/p>\n
company on the date of the order of Court sanctioning the scheme, he could<\/p>\n
by no stretch of imagination be termed as an employee of the petitioner-<\/p>\n
company.\n<\/p>\n
              He submits that on amalgamation of a company, a new entity<\/p>\n
comes into existence. Under the order of amalgamation made on the basis<\/p>\n
of the High Court order, the transferor company ceases to be in existence in<\/p>\n
the eyes of law and it effaced itself for all practical purposes.        After<\/p>\n
amalgamation of two companies, the transferor company ceases to have any<\/p>\n
entity and the amalgamated company acquires a new status and it is not<\/p>\n
possible to treat the two companies as partners or jointly liable in respect of<\/p>\n
their liabilities and assets.    For this submission, counsel relies upon a<\/p>\n
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial<\/p>\n
Syndicate Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax<\/a>, 1990 (Supp.) SCC 675.<\/p>\n
              A perusal of this judgment would show that this proposition<\/p>\n
has been laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but it has further been said that<\/p>\n
the amalgamation order and the Scheme made thereunder would be the<\/p>\n
guiding force for determining the liabilities of the parties. Therefore, to<\/p>\n
determine as to whether there was any relationship of the employer and<\/p>\n
employee, the Scheme of Amalgamation as approved by the Delhi High<\/p>\n
Court would be the relevant document from where all the rights and<\/p>\n
liabilities of the parties would flow.\n<\/p>\n
              Counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of the
\n C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                             -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission<\/p>\n
Corporation Ltd. And another vs. Amalgamated Electricity Co.Ltd<\/a>.<\/p>\n
and others, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 291 to submit that the liability of the<\/p>\n
company would be the same as that of the predecessor. For the same<\/p>\n
proposition, he also relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
on Workman Represented by Akhil Bhartiya Koyla Kamgar Union vs.<\/p>\n
Employers<\/a> in relation to the Management of Industry Colliery of M\/s.<\/p>\n
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And others, AIR 2001 SC 1994 and submits<\/p>\n
that the successor company who has stepped into the shoes of its<\/p>\n
predecessor would be liable as if the predecessor would have been liable.<\/p>\n
He argues that by legal fiction the workman would be the employee of the<\/p>\n
petitioner as the liabilities would be of the petitioner as per the Scheme of<\/p>\n
Amalgamation.      Since the claim of the workman was against M\/s.<\/p>\n
Telesound India Limited, whose rights and liabilities have been taken over<\/p>\n
by the petitioners, so all claims would lie against the present petitioner and<\/p>\n
it is for this reason that M\/s. Telesound India Limited has not been<\/p>\n
impleaded by the workman in the demand.\n<\/p>\n
             The question in the present case is that there is a Scheme of<\/p>\n
Amalgamation as sanctioned and approved by the High Court from where<\/p>\n
all the rights and liabilities of the parties flow. Therefore, the determining<\/p>\n
factor would ultimately be the Scheme and we will have to fall back on it to<\/p>\n
decide the issue in hand.\n<\/p>\n
             A perusal of Clause (2) of the Scheme would clearly indicate<\/p>\n
that it deals primarily with financial liabilities and the statutory obligations<\/p>\n
dealing with financial matters. It does not talk about the employees, more<\/p>\n
so   when a specific clause has been provided in the Scheme itself which
\n C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                           -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
takes care of the employees.\n<\/p>\n
            A clause which specifically deals with a particular subject<\/p>\n
would be determinative of the rights or the liabilities of the transferee<\/p>\n
company and would determine the relationship, the rights and liabilities qua<\/p>\n
that subject which is governed by that clause. Since Clause (12) specifically<\/p>\n
deals with the employees, the liabilities and rights of the employees would<\/p>\n
be governed by this clause. As per this clause only, the employees of the<\/p>\n
transferor company, who on the date of the order of the Court sanctioning<\/p>\n
the Scheme has been passed, would become the employees of the transferee<\/p>\n
company and none else.\n<\/p>\n
            In the light of this specific clause dealing with the employees<\/p>\n
and in the light of the admitted facts that on the date when the High Court<\/p>\n
passed the order i.e. on 5.11.1980, respondent No.3 was not in service nor<\/p>\n
was he the employee of the petitioner. Even no claim qua his services or<\/p>\n
relating to his employment was pending either with the transferor company<\/p>\n
or any Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act<\/a>, 1947. It is an admitted<\/p>\n
position that the demand notice is dated 27.4.1981 which is after the order<\/p>\n
of amalgamation was passed by the Delhi High Court on 5.11.1990.<\/p>\n
            In the light of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that<\/p>\n
there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner<\/p>\n
and respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n
            The next submission which has been put forth by the<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner is that although there is no relationship of<\/p>\n
employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent No.3, but<\/p>\n
still the reference itself is not maintainable because of the delay<\/p>\n
involved in it. He submits that it was a stale claim which did not call
\n C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                                 -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
for adjudication by the Labour Court. He submits that a specific ground<\/p>\n
to that effect was taken by the petitioner-Management before the<\/p>\n
Labour Court and issue No.3 was framed in this regard but the Labour<\/p>\n
Court has simply proceeded to make observations that the workman<\/p>\n
would not be entitled to back-wages and has, thus, failed to give a proper<\/p>\n
finding on the issue.\n<\/p>\n
             Counsel     for the petitioner submits that          the order of<\/p>\n
termination of the workman is dated 1.9.1973 and the demand notice is<\/p>\n
dated 27.4.1981. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming in the demand<\/p>\n
notice or in the claim petition for the delay nor has the workman in his<\/p>\n
statement given reasons justifying the delay in putting forth his demand.<\/p>\n
He submits that as there was no dispute and even if there was one, it<\/p>\n
was only in the year 1973 when the            services of the workman were<\/p>\n
terminated. With the passage of time, the said dispute had become stale<\/p>\n
and, therefore, could    not    have been agitated          by the         workman-<\/p>\n
respondent No.3. He relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs. K.P. Madhavankutty<\/p>\n
and others<\/a>, (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 455. He submits that in the<\/p>\n
said case    the   dispute     was   raised against   the    dismissal      by   the<\/p>\n
workman after a period of 7 long years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has<\/p>\n
held that although the law does not prescribe         any time limit         for the<\/p>\n
Appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but this power cannot be exercised at any<\/p>\n
point of time and to revive matters which had already been settled. The<\/p>\n
power of     reference is to be exercised reasonably and in a rationale<\/p>\n
manner.     There is no rational basis on which the Govt. has exercised
\n C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                       -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
powers in the said case after a lapse of 7 years of the order dismissing<\/p>\n
the workman from service. It has been further           held that at the<\/p>\n
time when the reference was made, no industrial dispute existed or could<\/p>\n
be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale cannot<\/p>\n
be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10<\/a> of the Act. It has<\/p>\n
further been observed that as to when a dispute can be said to be stale<\/p>\n
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner relying on these observations of the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court states that the present dispute also is of same nature as there has<\/p>\n
been delay of more than 7 years in raising the demand. He further relies<\/p>\n
upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which also deals with the<\/p>\n
question of stale disputes i.e. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation<\/p>\n
vs. Babu    Ram<\/a>,      (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 433. There also the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court had held      that delay cannot be condoned merely<\/p>\n
on conjectures and surmises and the onus would be on the workman to<\/p>\n
explain such delay.\n<\/p>\n
             On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman has<\/p>\n
submitted that there was ample justification with the workman for not<\/p>\n
approaching and putting forth his claim before 1981. He submits that the<\/p>\n
services of the respondent were terminated on 1.9.1973 on the ground that<\/p>\n
he had absented from duty for more than 8 days. He submits that the then<\/p>\n
Management      of M\/s.Telesound India Ltd. had got    registered a First<\/p>\n
Information Report against the workman on account of theft in the company<\/p>\n
due to    which he was arrested on 22.8.1973. He remained in judicial<\/p>\n
custody for 12\/13 days because of which he could not come present on his<\/p>\n
duty.    It was during this period that his services were terminated on
\n C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                           -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
1.9.1973 on the ground of absence for more than 8 days as per the Certified<\/p>\n
Standing Order No.16 of M\/s. Telesound India Limited. Since his absence<\/p>\n
is attributable to the F.I.R. that was got registered by the Management of<\/p>\n
M\/s.Tele sound India Limited which led to his arrest, he did not have any<\/p>\n
ground or reason for putting forth his demand unless a decision on the<\/p>\n
criminal case registered against him had come from the Court. He submits<\/p>\n
that the respondent was acquitted by the Court on 4.12.1978. During the<\/p>\n
said interregnum, M\/s.Telesound India Limited was closed down in the year<\/p>\n
1977. The right, if any, therefore, accrued to the respondent only on his<\/p>\n
acquittal on 4.12.1978, on which date M\/s.Telesound India Limited stood<\/p>\n
closed. The company petitions were going on in the High Court and till the<\/p>\n
finalization of the proceedings the workman could not prefer any claim<\/p>\n
against the company. Therefore, he waited for the amalgamation scheme<\/p>\n
which was being formulated and when the said scheme was finally<\/p>\n
accepted, sanctioned and approved by the High Court of Delhi on<\/p>\n
5.11.1980, he preferred a claim petition on 27.4.1981. Counsel on the basis<\/p>\n
of these submissions states that there is no delay on the part of the<\/p>\n
respondent in putting forth his claim and even if it is assumed to be so, then<\/p>\n
also it cannot be attributed to the respondent. His claim was always alive<\/p>\n
but due to the reasons which have been submitted above he could not put a<\/p>\n
demand to that effect.\n<\/p>\n
            I am afraid these submissions although may appear to be quite<\/p>\n
natural and justified but cannot be taken to be a reasonable explanation for<\/p>\n
condoning the delay. It is not in dispute that the services of the respondent-<\/p>\n
workman were terminated on the ground of his absence of more than 8 days<\/p>\n
as per certified standing order No.16 of M\/s. Telesound India Limited and
\n C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                            -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
not on the basis of the registration of an F.I.R. for theft. The claim for non-<\/p>\n
compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act<\/a> while<\/p>\n
terminating his services or for challenging his termination on the ground<\/p>\n
that it was not in accordance with the Standing Order or the Industrial<\/p>\n
Disputes Act<\/a> was not dependent either on the FIR or on the outcome of<\/p>\n
the criminal trial which followed the registration of the F.I.R.       It was<\/p>\n
purely an independent cause of          action which had accrued to the<\/p>\n
workman, which has been taken as a ground by the workman while<\/p>\n
putting forth his demand on 27.4.1981. Therefore, the cause of action<\/p>\n
arose to the workman on his termination in September, 1973. It is not in<\/p>\n
dispute that the first demand which has been put-forth by the workman<\/p>\n
is through his demand notice dated 27.4.1981. That being the position and<\/p>\n
there being a delay of more than 7 years in raising a dispute with no cogent<\/p>\n
and reasonable explanation forth-coming from the side of the respondent,<\/p>\n
this Court has no option but to hold that the claim was stale and there was<\/p>\n
no industrial dispute in existence on the date the demand notice was<\/p>\n
submitted.\n<\/p>\n
             This dispute which is stale, therefore, could not be the subject-<\/p>\n
matter of the reference under Section 10<\/a> of the Act. Demand raised by the<\/p>\n
respondent for raising an industrial dispute after a delay of more than 7<\/p>\n
years is ex-facie bad and incompetent and, therefore, the reference was not<\/p>\n
maintainable before the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
             In the light of the above, I do not feel it necessary to go into<\/p>\n
the question as to whether the termination of the services of the respondent-<\/p>\n
workman was in accordance with Certified Standing Order No.16 of M\/s.<\/p>\n
Telesound India Limited or not.\n<\/p>\n
 C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                          -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
           In view of what has been held above, the present writ petition is<\/p>\n
allowed and the impugned award dated 12.4.1985 passed by the Industrial<\/p>\n
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Haryana Faridabad (Annexure P-1) is hereby<\/p>\n
quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
January 27, 2009                     ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )\npoonam                                         JUDGE\n\n\n\n\nWhether referred to Reporters ________ Yes\/No\n C.W.P.No.545 of 1986                                          -14-<\/span>\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n               CHANDIGARH\n\n                                     C.W.P.No.546 of 1986\n                                     Date of Decision:- 27.01.2009\n\nManagement of M\/s. Dalmia Cement\n(Bharat) Ltd., Ballabgarh, Haryana              ....Petitioner(s)\n\n\n                   vs.\n\nState of Haryana and others                     ....Respondent(s)\n\n                   ***\n\n<\/pre>\n
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH<\/p>\n
                   ***<\/p>\n
Present:-   Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
            Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.<\/p>\n
            Mr.R.S.Sihota, Sr.Advocate with
\n            Mr.H.P.S.Ishar, Advocate for respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
                   ***<\/p>\n
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.\n<\/p>\n
            For orders, see separate detailed judgment of even date passed<\/p>\n
in C.W.P.No.545 of 2006 (Management of M\/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat)<\/p>\n
Ltd., Ballabgarh, Haryana vs. State of Haryana and others).<\/p>\n
January 27, 2009                  ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )\npoonam                                        JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Management Of M\/S. Dalmia Cement vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 January, 2009 C.W.P.No.545 of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.545 of 1986 Date of Decision:- 27.01.2009 Management of M\/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., Ballabgarh, Haryana ….Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-265922","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManagement Of M\/S. Dalmia Cement vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 January, 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\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Management Of M\/S. Dalmia Cement vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-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=\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-25T05:21:22+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Management Of M\\\/S. Dalmia Cement vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-25T05:21:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3475,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Management Of M\\\/S. Dalmia Cement vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-25T05:21:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Management Of M\\\/S. Dalmia Cement vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 January, 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":"Management Of M\/S. Dalmia Cement vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 January, 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\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Management Of M\/S. Dalmia Cement vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-25T05:21:22+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Management Of M\/S. Dalmia Cement vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-25T05:21:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009"},"wordCount":3475,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009","name":"Management Of M\/S. Dalmia Cement vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-25T05:21:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-ms-dalmia-cement-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Management Of M\/S. Dalmia Cement vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 January, 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\/265922","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=265922"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265922\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=265922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=265922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=265922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}