{"id":269795,"date":"2003-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003"},"modified":"2015-01-02T04:57:58","modified_gmt":"2015-01-01T23:27:58","slug":"the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"The Management Of Sri Ganapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 8 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Management Of Sri Ganapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 8 July, 2003<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 08\/07\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN\n\nWRIT PETITION No.11436 of 1996 and WRIT PETITION No.1145 OF 1997\n\nThe Management of Sri Ganapathy\n Mills Co.Ltd.,\nSankaranagar,\nTirunelveli-627 357.                    ... Petitioner in W.P.\n                                        No.11436\/96 &amp; 2nd\n                                        respondent in<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                                        W.P.1145\/1997<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">-Vs-<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">\n\n1. The Presiding Officer,\n   Special Industrial Tribunal,\n   Madras.                              ... 1st Respondent\n                                        in both the W.Ps.\n\n2. N.Kandiah                            ... Petitioner in\n                                        W.P.1145\/1997 &amp;\n                                        2nd respondent in\n                                        W.P.11436\/1996\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_2\">                Writ Petitions under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of  India<br \/>\npraying  for  issuance  of  writ  of  certiorari  and  writ  of certiorarified<br \/>\nmandamus, respectively as stated therein.<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_2\">\n\n\n!For Petitioner in\nW.P.11436\/96 &amp;\n2nd respondent\nin W.P.1145\/97          ..  Mr.Vijay Narayan\n\n\n^For Respondents        ..  Mr.K.M.Ramesh for\nPetitioner in W.P.1145\/97 &amp; 2nd respondent in\nW.P.No.11436\/1996\n\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_3\">                The petitioner in  Writ  Petition  No.11436  of  1996  is  the<br \/>\nmanagement  and  it has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the<br \/>\nrecords in Complaint No.2 of 1993 in I.D.Nos.1,2 and 3 of 1993, pertaining  to<br \/>\nthe  Award, dated 8.11.1995, insofar as it relates to the relief of wages from<br \/>\n31.1.1993 till the date of award.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">                2.  The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1145  of  1997  is  the<br \/>\nWorkman  and he has sought for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus for<br \/>\nquashing the same award insofar as it denies the relief of reinstatement  with<br \/>\ncontinuity  of  service  and  all  other  attendant benefits and directing the<br \/>\nrespondent\/management to reinstate the petitioner\/  workman  in  service  with<br \/>\ncontinuity of service and all other benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">                3.  Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same award,<br \/>\nthey are  heard  together  and  a  common  order  is  passed.  The parties are<br \/>\nreferred to as arrayed in Writ Petition No.l1436 of 1996 in this order.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">                4.  The second respondent\/workman was employed as a  Sider  in<br \/>\nthe Spinning  Department  of  the  petitioner\/  management  mill.   The second<br \/>\nrespondent\/workman took active part in the general  textile  strike  in  Tamil<br \/>\nNadu  from 15.12.1992 and the petitioner\/management issued three charge sheets<br \/>\nin succession and the first and third charge sheets related to alleged wastage<br \/>\nof yarn and the second charge sheet related to absence in the work spot during<br \/>\nworking hours.  The petitioner\/ management conducted three domestic  enquiries<br \/>\nand  the  enquiry  officer  found  all the charges levelled against the second<br \/>\nrespondent\/workman were proved and a second show cause notice  was  issued  to<br \/>\nthe  second  respondent\/workman  on  26.2.1993  and the petitioner\/ management<br \/>\nissued final order, dated 6.3.1993, dismissing the  second  respondent\/workman<br \/>\nfrom service  with  effect  from  31.1.1993.  At the relevant point of time, a<br \/>\ndispute was pending in the first respondent Industrial  Tribunal  relating  to<br \/>\nthe  Textile  Mills  in  Tamilnadu,  regarding the General Charter demands, to<br \/>\nwhich the petitioner\/management mill was a party.  The  petitioner\/management,<br \/>\nby omission, did not seek approval of the action under <a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 33(2)(b)<\/a> of the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act to dismiss the second respondent\/workman from service.<br \/>\nTherefore, the second respondent\/workman filed a complaint under <a href=\"\/doc\/1774629\/\" id=\"a_2\">Section 33(A)<\/a><br \/>\nof  the  Act, which was taken on file as complaint No.2 of 1993 in I.D.Nos.1,2<br \/>\nand 3 of 1993.   The  petitioner\/management  filed  counter  statement.    The<br \/>\nvalidity  of  the  domestic  enquiry  was  taken  as preliminary issue and the<br \/>\npetitioner\/management was permitted to let in evidence on the  merits  of  the<br \/>\ncharges  and  the  first  respondent  Industrial Tribunal, by its award, dated<br \/>\n8.11.1995, came to the conclusion that the charges were  proved  and  the  non<br \/>\nemployment of the second respondent\/workman was justified.  However, the first<br \/>\nrespondent  Industrial Tribunal held that inasmuch as the domestic enquiry was<br \/>\nheld to be invalid, but subsequently, the Tribunal upheld the punishment,  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent  would  be  entitled  to  wages from the date of dismissal,<br \/>\nnamely, 31.1.1993, till the date of award, namely, 8.11.1995.    Aggrieved  by<br \/>\nthe  declining  of  the  relief  of  reinstatement  with  backwages  and other<br \/>\nbenefits,  the  second  respondent\/workman  has  challenged   the   award   in<br \/>\nW.P.No.1145  of  1997  and  aggrieved  by the granting of relief of wages from<br \/>\n31.1.199 3 to the date of award, the petitioner\/management has challenged  the<br \/>\naward in W.P.No.11436 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">                5.   Heard  the  learned counsel for the petitioner\/management<br \/>\nand the second respondent\/workman.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">                6.  The facts are not  disputed.    The  petitioner\/management<br \/>\nissued  final  order,  dated 6.3.1993 dismissing the second respondent\/workman<br \/>\nfrom service with effect from 31.1.1993 and at the relevant point of time,  an<br \/>\nindustrial  dispute  relating to the Textile Mills in Tamilnadu, regarding the<br \/>\nGeneral Charter of Demands, of which the petitioner  mill  was  a  party,  was<br \/>\npending before the first respondent Tribunal and the petitioner\/management, by<br \/>\nomission,  did  not  seek  the  approval  of  its action to dismiss the second<br \/>\nrespondent\/workman from service under <a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 33(2)(b)<\/a> of the Act  before  the<br \/>\nfirst respondent   Tribunal.      The   learned   counsel   for   the   second<br \/>\nrespondent\/workman contended that the conditions contained in the  proviso  to<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_4\">Section 33(2)(b)<\/a> are mandatory in nature and their non compliance would render<br \/>\nthe  order of dismissal void and the second respondent\/workman would be deemed<br \/>\nto have continued in service and entitled to all the benefits of  service  and<br \/>\nhe  relied  on  the  decision  of  the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/34445\/\" id=\"a_5\">Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd.  vs.  Ram Gopal Sharma and  others<\/a><br \/>\n (2002-I-LLJ  834).    In  the above decision, Their Lordships of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt considered the question  of  approval  under  <a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_6\">Section  33(2)(b)<\/a>  of  the<br \/>\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act,  1947 on a reference made to the Constitution Bench<br \/>\nand laid down the law as follows.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">        &#8220;15.  The view that when no application is made or  the  one  made  is<br \/>\nwithdrawn,  there  is  no order of refusal of such application on merit and as<br \/>\nsuch the order of dismissal or discharge does not become void  or  inoperative<br \/>\nunless such  an order is set aside under <a href=\"\/doc\/365858\/\" id=\"a_7\">Section 33-A<\/a>, cannot be accepted.  In<br \/>\nour view, not making an application under <a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_8\">Section 33(2)(b)<\/a> seeking approval or<br \/>\nwithdrawing an application once made before any order is made  thereon,  is  a<br \/>\nclear case  of  contravention of the proviso to <a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_9\">Section 33(2)(b)<\/a>.  An employee<br \/>\nwho does not make an application under <a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_10\">Section 33(2)(b)<\/a> or withdraws  the  one<br \/>\nmade,  cannot be rewarded by relieving him of the statutory obligation created<br \/>\non him to make such an application.  &#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">                16.  &#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">                17.  &#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">                18.  In view of what is stated above,  we  respectfully  agree<br \/>\nwith  and  endorse  the view taken in the case of Strawboard and Tata Iron and<br \/>\nSteel Co.  and further state that the view expressed in  Punjab  Beverages  on<br \/>\nthe question is not the correct view.  The question raised in the beginning of<br \/>\nthis judgment is answered accordingly.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">                7.  The Constitution Bench endorsed the view taken in the case<br \/>\nin <a href=\"\/doc\/211332\/\" id=\"a_11\">Strawboard Manufacturing  Co.    vs.   Gobind<\/a> &#8211; (AIR 1962 SC 1500) and <a href=\"\/doc\/1858510\/\" id=\"a_12\">Tata<br \/>\nIron and Steel Co.  Ltd.  vs.  S.N.Modak<\/a>  (AIR 1966 SC 380) and held that not<br \/>\nmaking an application under <a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_13\">Section 33(2)(b)<\/a> seeking approval before any order<br \/>\nis made thereon is a clear case of contravention of  the  proviso  to  <a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_14\">Section<br \/>\n33(2)(b)<\/a>  and  the  workman  would  be  deemed never to have been dismissed or<br \/>\ndischarged and would remain in the service of the  employer.    In  the  later<br \/>\ndecision in <a href=\"\/doc\/1063572\/\" id=\"a_15\">Indian  Telephone  Industries  Ltd.   vs.  Prabhakar H.Manjare and<br \/>\nanother<\/a>  (2002-III-LLJ 113 4), the Apex Court referred  to  the  Constitution<br \/>\nBench Judgment and held as follows.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">        &#8220;5.  A Constitution Bench of this Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi<br \/>\nVikas Bank  Ltd.    (supra),  has  ruled  that the conditions contained in the<br \/>\nproviso to <a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_16\">Section 33(2)(b)<\/a> are mandatory in nature and  their  non-compliance<br \/>\nwould render  the  order of discharge or dismissal void or inoperative.  It is<br \/>\nfurther held that if the Tribunal refuses to grant approval sought  for  under<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_17\">Section  33(2)(b)<\/a>,  the  effect  of it shall be that the order of discharge or<br \/>\ndismissal had never been passed and consequently the employee would be  deemed<br \/>\nto have  continued in service entitling him to all the benefits available.  It<br \/>\nis also made clear that not  making  an  application  under  <a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_18\">Section  33(2)(b)<\/a><br \/>\nseeking  approval  or withdrawing an application once made before any order is<br \/>\nmade thereon, is a clear case of  contravention  of  the  proviso  to  <a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_19\">Section<br \/>\n33(2)(b)<\/a>.  While approving the cases of Straw Board (Supra), and Tata Iron and<br \/>\nSteel Co.  (supra), the case of Punjab Beverages ( supra), is overruled.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">                8.   The  law  is  well  settled  that  non  compliance of the<br \/>\ncondition contained in the proviso to <a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_20\">Section 33(2)(b)<\/a>, which is mandatory  in<br \/>\nnature, would render the order of dismissal void and the effect of which shall<br \/>\nbe that the order of dismissal had never been passed and the employee would be<br \/>\ndeemed to  have  continued  in  service.  In the present case, admittedly, the<br \/>\npetitioner\/management did not comply with the condition under <a href=\"\/doc\/535397\/\" id=\"a_21\">Section 33(2)(b)<\/a><br \/>\nwhile rendering the order of the dismissal of  the  second  respondent\/workman<br \/>\nand  hence  it  shall be that the order of the dismissal has never been passed<br \/>\nand the second respondent\/workman will be deemed to have been in  service  and<br \/>\nentitled to  all the benefits available to him.  The second respondent\/workman<br \/>\nis entitled for the relief prayed for in his writ petition  and  at  the  same<br \/>\ntime,  the  petitioner\/management is not entitled to the relief claimed in its<br \/>\nwrit petition.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">                9.  In the result, writ petition No.1145 of 1997 is allowed as<br \/>\nprayed for.  Writ Petition No.11436 of 1996 is dismissed.  No  costs  in  both<br \/>\nthe petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">Index: Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">Internet:Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">gb.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">To:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nSpecial Industrial Tribunal,<br \/>\nMadras.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Management Of Sri Ganapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 8 July, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08\/07\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN WRIT PETITION No.11436 of 1996 and WRIT PETITION No.1145 OF 1997 The Management of Sri Ganapathy Mills Co.Ltd., Sankaranagar, Tirunelveli-627 357. &#8230; Petitioner in [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-269795","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Management Of Sri Ganapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 8 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Management Of Sri Ganapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 8 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-01T23:27:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Management Of Sri Ganapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 8 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-01T23:27:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1465,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003\",\"name\":\"The Management Of Sri Ganapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 8 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-01T23:27:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Management Of Sri Ganapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 8 July, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Management Of Sri Ganapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 8 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Management Of Sri Ganapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 8 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-01T23:27:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Management Of Sri Ganapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 8 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-01T23:27:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003"},"wordCount":1465,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003","name":"The Management Of Sri Ganapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 8 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-01T23:27:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-sri-ganapathy-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-8-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Management Of Sri Ganapathy vs The Presiding Officer on 8 July, 2003"}]},{"@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\/269795","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=269795"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269795\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269795"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269795"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}