{"id":271148,"date":"2010-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-12-04T07:45:49","modified_gmt":"2018-12-04T02:15:49","slug":"executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Executive vs Pandya on 6 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Executive vs Pandya on 6 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/223\/2010\t 9\/ 9\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 223 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nEXECUTIVE\nENGINEER &amp; 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPANDYA\nASHOKKUMAR RAMNIKLAL - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMr.\nAnand L. Sharma, AGP for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR DS VASAVADA for\nRespondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned AGP Mr. Anand L. Sharma for petitioner State Authority and<br \/>\n\tlearned Advocate Mr. DS Vasavada for respondent workman.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">Petitioner,<br \/>\n\tExecutive Engineer, Palitana and Bhavnagar has challenged award made<br \/>\n\tby Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference No. 565 of 1988 Exh. 79<br \/>\n\tdecided on 29th August, 2009 wherein Reference has been<br \/>\n\tpartly allowed by Labour Court while setting aside oral termination<br \/>\n\torder and granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 10<br \/>\n\tper cent back wages for interim period with costs of Rs.1000.00.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">Learned<br \/>\n\tAGP Mr. Sharma for petitioner has submitted that present respondent<br \/>\n\tworkman was working under petitioner from last six years and he was<br \/>\n\tpaid Rs.587.00 p.m.  as per statement of claim filed by workman. He<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that according to respondent, his service was terminated<br \/>\n\tby petitioner on 15th February, 1988. At that time, no<br \/>\n\tnotice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation has been paid by<br \/>\n\tpetitioner as required to be paid by petitioner under <a href=\"\/doc\/1056316\/\" id=\"a_1\">section 25F<\/a> of<br \/>\n\tthe ID Act, 1947. He submitted that workman alleged that his juniors<br \/>\n\twere continued in service when his service was terminated and,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, industrial dispute was raised by respondent against such<br \/>\n\ttermination which has been referred to for adjudication before<br \/>\n\tlabour court, Bhavnagar. Written statement was filed by petitioner<br \/>\n\tbefore labour court opposing statement of claim filed by workman.<br \/>\n\tAverments made by workman in statement of claim were denied by<br \/>\n\tpetitioner but according to petitioners, in June, 1986 to October,<br \/>\n\t1986, workman had worked for only 145 days and from July, 1987 to<br \/>\n\tJanuary, 1988, he had worked for only 192 days and during monsoon<br \/>\n\tseason, having limited work in flood-shell  on Khari Dam, he was<br \/>\n\tengaged for daily wager and for that period, he was paid salary.<br \/>\n\tAccording to petitioner, as per written statement, when monsoon<br \/>\n\tseason is over and work for Flood Cell  was stopped, his work was<br \/>\n\tstopped as per order of Government along with other daily wagers and<br \/>\n\this service was terminated on 13.1.1988 as per record and not on<br \/>\n\t15.2.1988. Application dated August, 1988 was made by respondent<br \/>\n\tworkman wherein reply was given by petitioner on 12th<br \/>\n\tDecember, 1988. Respondent has not completed 240 days continuous<br \/>\n\tservice and therefore, question of complying with <a href=\"\/doc\/1056316\/\" id=\"a_1\">section 25F<\/a> does<br \/>\n\tnot arise. He submitted that labour court has committed gross error<br \/>\n\tin coming to conclusion that workman has completed 240 days<br \/>\n\tcontinuous service with petitioner. He submitted that labour court<br \/>\n\thas committed gross error in deciding reference which is contrary to<br \/>\n\trecord and law. He submitted that workman has not proved completion<br \/>\n\tof 240 days continuous service before labour court by producing<br \/>\n\tcogent evidence on record. He submitted that the respondent workman<br \/>\n\twas not working as operator but he was daily wage labour only and<br \/>\n\tallowed to work as seasonal employee for the period 1986-87 and<br \/>\n\t1988. He submitted that the labour court has committed gross error<br \/>\n\tin drawing an adverse inference against petitioner. He submitted<br \/>\n\tthat labour court has committed error while coming to conclusion<br \/>\n\tthat <a href=\"\/doc\/1056316\/\" id=\"a_2\">section 25-F<\/a> and <a href=\"\/doc\/41851\/\" id=\"a_3\">25-G<\/a> have been violated and workman has<br \/>\n\tcompleted 240 days continuous service as defined under sec. 25-B of<br \/>\n\tID Act. He further submitted that labour court has not examined<br \/>\n\tmatter properly under <a href=\"\/doc\/1505766\/\" id=\"a_4\">section 102<\/a> and <a href=\"\/doc\/731516\/\" id=\"a_5\">114<\/a> of the Indian Evidence<br \/>\n\tAct. In short, his submission that labour court has committed error<br \/>\n\tin granting relief in favour of workman and, therefore, matter would<br \/>\n\trequire interference of this court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">Learned<br \/>\n\tAdvocate Mr. DS Vasavada appearing for workman has submitted that<br \/>\n\tworkman was in service for more than six years and his service was<br \/>\n\tterminated on 15.2.1988 and he has completed 240 days continuous<br \/>\n\tservice and number of documents were produced on record by workman<br \/>\n\twhich were rightly considered and appreciated by labour court. For<br \/>\n\tthat, as per his submission, labour court has not committed any<br \/>\n\terror which would require interference of this court. He also<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that witness Mohanbhai for establishment has admitted in<br \/>\n\this cross examination at Exh. 67 that it is correct that workman was<br \/>\n\ton work in November December, 1987 and January, 1988 though work of<br \/>\n\tflood cell was not there and performed other work during said period<br \/>\n\tand record subsequent to 13.1.1988 has not been produced. He<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that there is no specific order issued in favour of<br \/>\n\tworkman to allow to work only in flood cell and his presence was<br \/>\n\tmarked in muster as well as his presence has been maintained and<br \/>\n\tkeeping account by the petitioner. He further submitted that before<br \/>\n\tlabour court, complete record was not produced by petitioner in<br \/>\n\trespect of the work which was performed by respondent workman. He<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that witness for petitioner admitted in his cross<br \/>\n\texmination that during period from 1983 to 1988, various type of<br \/>\n\twork such as telephone operator, inward, outward and wireless<br \/>\n\tmessage has been taken from respondent workman and those documents<br \/>\n\thave not been shown to workman when inspection was carried out and,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, labour court has rightly held that there was no seasonal<br \/>\n\twork  wherein respondent workman was appointed by petitioner. He<br \/>\n\talso submitted that the labour court has rightly come to conclusion<br \/>\n\tthat petitioner has not produced relevant record for the relevant<br \/>\n\tperiod from 1983 to 1988 such as pay register, muster register and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, in absence of such documents, though demanded by workman,<br \/>\n\tsame was not produced on record by petitioner, therefore, labour<br \/>\n\tcourt has rightly come to conclusion that workman has completed<br \/>\n\tcontinuous service from 1983 to 1988. He submitted that witness for<br \/>\n\tpetitioner was examined at Exh. 67, Mohanbhai and certain documents<br \/>\n\thave been produced but documents for subsequent period have not been<br \/>\n\tproduced on record and workman was not engaged absolutely for the<br \/>\n\tpurpose of seasonal work alone means flood cell and from record for<br \/>\n\tperiod subsequent to 13.1.1988 has not been produced and, therefore,<br \/>\n\tlabour court has rightly come to conclusion that workman has<br \/>\n\tcompleted 240 days continuous service as complete record was not<br \/>\n\tproduced though demanded by workman and admittedly <a href=\"\/doc\/1953529\/\" id=\"a_6\">section 25F<\/a> has<br \/>\n\tnot been complied with by petitioner and, therefore, labour court<br \/>\n\thas rightly set aside termination and has rightly granted relief of<br \/>\n\treinstatement and 10 per cent back wages for interim period<br \/>\n\tconsidering total period of service as well as pendency from 1988 to<br \/>\n\t2009 and, therefore, such award cannot be considered to be<br \/>\n\tunreasonable, unjust and therefore, no interference is required by<br \/>\n\tthis Court while exercising powers under <a href=\"\/doc\/1331149\/\" id=\"a_7\">Article 227<\/a> of the<br \/>\n\tConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">I<br \/>\n\thave considered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have<br \/>\n\talso perused impugned award made by labour court. Period from which<br \/>\n\tworkman was remaining in service was, as per workman from 1983 to<br \/>\n\t1988 and his service was terminated on 15th February,<br \/>\n\t1988 and reference was made  on 29th November, 1988.<br \/>\n\tLabour court considered documents as mentioned in para 4 of award.<br \/>\n\tLabour court has considered certain decisions of this court as well<br \/>\n\tas apex court and issues have been framed in paragraph 6 of award.<br \/>\n\tLabour court has come to conclusion that the dispute raised by<br \/>\n\tworkman is covered by <a href=\"\/doc\/1418464\/\" id=\"a_8\">section 2(k)<\/a> of ID Act, 1947. Workman was<br \/>\n\texamined before labour court and witness Mohanbhai was examined<br \/>\n\tbefore labour court at Exh. 67. Record from 1985 to 1988 was<br \/>\n\tproduced before labour court. In those documents, name of workman<br \/>\n\twas found but according to workman, he was in service from 1983 to<br \/>\n\t1988 and witness Mohanbhai for petitioner admitted in his cross<br \/>\n\texamination that other work was also being given to workman and,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, petitioner has not produced complete record of msuter<br \/>\n\troll, pay register, telephone, inward and outward register, wireless<br \/>\n\tetc. Vide Exh. 65, workman has produced evidence to the effect that<br \/>\n\tafter  retrenchment of workman, new workmen were engaged in 1988.<br \/>\n\tShri LV Nakiya was engaged on 31.10.1988 and made permanent from<br \/>\n\t1.4.2000, despite that, workman was not called by petitioner before<br \/>\n\tengaging fresh workmen and no evidence contrary to such evidence of<br \/>\n\tworkman was produced by petitioner and, therefore, labour court has<br \/>\n\tcome to the conclusion that <a href=\"\/doc\/1476304\/\" id=\"a_9\">section 25-H<\/a> of the ID Act, 1947 has<br \/>\n\tbeen violated by petitioner. At Exh. 67, witness for petitioner,<br \/>\n\tShri Mohanbhai has admitted that in November-December, 1987 and<br \/>\n\tJanuary, 1988, work of flood cell was not available and workman has<br \/>\n\tremained continue in service and no record has been produced for<br \/>\n\tperiod subsequent to 13.1.1988. Labour court has also considered<br \/>\n\tthat while workman was in service, petitioner has not supplied any<br \/>\n\tdocuments to workman such as identity card, pay slip, copy of muster<br \/>\n\tcard and  orders of appointment and termination and before labour<br \/>\n\tcourt also, relevant documents demanded by workman have not been<br \/>\n\tproduced by petitioner.  Therefore, labour court has considered oral<br \/>\n\tevidence of workman against which no rebuttal evidence was produced<br \/>\n\tby petitioner for controverting say of workman that he has completed<br \/>\n\tcontinuous service of 240 days in 12 months preceding date of<br \/>\n\ttermination. Initially, it is the burden upon the workman to prove<br \/>\n\tthat he has completed 240 days continuous service within 12 months<br \/>\n\tpreceding date of termination or not. In this case, such burden has<br \/>\n\tbeen discharged by workman by giving oral evidence that he remained<br \/>\n\tin continuous service from 1983 to 1988 and completed 240 days<br \/>\n\tcontinuous service and his service was terminated by petitioner in<br \/>\n\tbreach of <a href=\"\/doc\/1056316\/\" id=\"a_10\">section 25F<\/a> of ID Act. Such evidence of workman had<br \/>\n\tremained unchallenged and uncontroverted because there is no<br \/>\n\trebuttal evidence produced by petitioner before labour court that<br \/>\n\tworkman has not completed 240 days continuous service as per his<br \/>\n\tdeposition before labour court. Petitioner was directed by labour<br \/>\n\tcourt to make production of entire record from 1983 to 1988 but that<br \/>\n\trecord was not produced by petitioner before labour court,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, labour court has drawn adverse inference and come to<br \/>\n\tconclusion that workman has completed 240 days continuous service<br \/>\n\tand undisputedly <a href=\"\/doc\/1056316\/\" id=\"a_11\">section 25F<\/a> has not been complied with by<br \/>\n\tpetitioner but petitioner was contending that petitioner is not<br \/>\n\trequired to comply with such provision as workman has not completed<br \/>\n\t240 days continuous service.  As against evidence produced by<br \/>\n\tworkman that after his retrenchment, new workmen were engaged,  Shri<br \/>\n\tLV Nakiya was engaged on 31.10.1988 and made permanent from<br \/>\n\t1.4.2000, no evidence was produced by petitioner to controvert such<br \/>\n\tevidence and, therefore, labour court has come to conclusion that<br \/>\n\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1476304\/\" id=\"a_12\">section 25H<\/a> is violated by petitioner. Labour Court has considered<br \/>\n\ttermination of 1988, reference made in 1988 and evidence given by<br \/>\n\tworkman on 27.8.2008.Therefore, labour court has granted relief of<br \/>\n\treinstatement with only 10 per cent back wages for interim period.<br \/>\n\tTherefore, according to my opinion, labour court has not committed<br \/>\n\tany error which would require interference of this court in exercise<br \/>\n\tof powers under <a href=\"\/doc\/1331149\/\" id=\"a_13\">Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India. [See :<br \/>\n\tDirector, Fisheries Terminal Department versus Bhikubhai Meghajibhai<br \/>\n\tChavda, 2010 AIR SCW 542; RM Yellatti versus Assistant Executive<br \/>\n\tEngineer, AIR 2006 SC 355; Rameshkumar versus State of Haryana, 2010<br \/>\n\t(1) SCALE 432; Harjinder Singh versus Punjab State Warehousing<br \/>\n\tCorporation, 2010 (1) SCALE page 613].\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">Therefore,<br \/>\n\tin view of aforesaid discussion and decisions of apex court as<br \/>\n\treferred to above, there is no substance in this petition and<br \/>\n\taccordingly this petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">(H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">Rathod,J.)<\/p>\n<p>Vyas<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Executive vs Pandya on 6 April, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/223\/2010 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 223 of 2010 ========================================================= EXECUTIVE ENGINEER &amp; 1 &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus PANDYA ASHOKKUMAR RAMNIKLAL &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : Mr. [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-271148","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Executive vs Pandya on 6 April, 2010 - 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\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Executive vs Pandya on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-04T02:15:49+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Executive vs Pandya on 6 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-04T02:15:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1787,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Executive vs Pandya on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-04T02:15:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Executive vs Pandya on 6 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Executive vs Pandya on 6 April, 2010 - 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\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Executive vs Pandya on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-04T02:15:49+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Executive vs Pandya on 6 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-04T02:15:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010"},"wordCount":1787,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010","name":"Executive vs Pandya on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-04T02:15:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executive-vs-pandya-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Executive vs Pandya on 6 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/271148","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=271148"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271148\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}