{"id":29238,"date":"2006-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006"},"modified":"2017-04-01T22:00:10","modified_gmt":"2017-04-01T16:30:10","slug":"the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Management vs P. Swaminathan on 28 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Management vs P. Swaminathan on 28 July, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 28\/07\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR        \n\nWrit Petition No.5726 of 1998\n\nThe Management   \nGedee Weiler Pvt. Ltd.,\nGopal Bagh, \n1062 Avanashi road, \nCoimbatore  641 018             ...Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.P. Swaminathan  \n\n2.The Presiding Officer,\nLabour Court,\nCoimbatore.                     ...Respondents\n\n\n        This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of\nIndia, praying this Court to issue a writ  of  Certiorari,  to  call  for  the\nrecords  connected  with  order dated 27.2.1998 made by the Presiding Officer,\nLabour Court, Coimbatore in C laint No.1\/97 and quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioner         :       Mr.Sanjay Mohan for\n                                M\/s.Ramasubramaniam and\n                                Associates\n^For 1st Respondent     :       Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan\n        2nd Respondent  :       Court\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>        Petitioner seeks to quash the order made in  Complaint  No.1  of  1997<br \/>\ndated  27.2.1998  on  the  file  of  the  Labour Court, Coimbatore, the second<br \/>\nrespondent herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as<br \/>\nfollows.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a)     Petitioner is engaged in the  manufacture  of  High  Precision<br \/>\nCapstan Lathes,  Tool  Room  Lathes and Automats.  Petitioner has got branches<br \/>\nall over the South India.  The petitioner Management used  to  transfer\/depute<br \/>\npersonnel from its manufactur , who knows servicing, to all the branches for a<br \/>\nspecific period depending upon the exigency of work.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)     Petitioner  Management received a letter on 23.6.1997 from the<br \/>\nSenior Sales Officer, Chennai branch, requesting to depute a person to  attend<br \/>\nthe complaint\/service  of  Gedee  Weiler Lathes.  Pursuant to the said letter,<br \/>\nthe first respondent was red to Chennai branch Office by order dated 5.7.1997.<br \/>\nThe first respondent failed to comply with the said order and did  not  report<br \/>\nfor duty  at  Chennai  branch.    Therefore,  petitioner  management initiated<br \/>\ndisciplinary action against the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (c)     I.D.No.140 of 1997 was pending  on  the  file  of  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent  due  to  the  reference  dated 12.3.1997 with regard to a specific<br \/>\nissue as to whether the transfer of six individuals was justified or not.   No<br \/>\ngeneral  issue  with  regard  to  the  wer  of  the Management to transfer the<br \/>\nindividuals was referred to be decided in the said industrial  dispute.    The<br \/>\npetitioner Management is the first respondent in the said I.D.No.140 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (d)     The  first  respondent  alleged that the petitioner Management<br \/>\ncontravened the provisions of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act,  1947<br \/>\nin  issuing the order of transfer to him while I.D.No.140 of 1997 was pending.<br \/>\nIn the said proceeding i eged that the petitioner Management had no  power  to<br \/>\ntransfer  the first respondent and also alleged that the Model Standing Orders<br \/>\ndid not provide for any transfer and therefore the Company  has  no  power  to<br \/>\ntransfer  the  first  respondent from one Unit to an other or from one unit to<br \/>\nthe Madras Branch Office.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (e)     The Management filed counter affidavit before the Labour Court<br \/>\nand contended that the complaint itself was wholly  without  jurisdiction  and<br \/>\nthere is no change in the service condition so as to attract Section 33 of the<br \/>\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act  and  therefore  the  complaint  is not maintainable<br \/>\nbecause the first respondent was neither  concerned  nor  connected  with  the<br \/>\ndispute that was pending before the Labour Court in I.DNo.140 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (f)     Petitioner  Management also contended that it has got power to<br \/>\ntransfer and in fact transfers were made in the past and the first  respondent<br \/>\nhimself  had  been  sent  on  deputation  to  sister  concerns and he was also<br \/>\ntransferred from Unit-I to Uni from Unit-II to Unit-I  on  earlier  occasions.<br \/>\nThe  second respondent without going into the maintainability of the complaint<br \/>\nhas gone into the matter on merits and directed the management to  cancel  the<br \/>\ntransfer  order  dated 5.7.1997 and to post the first respondent at Coimbatore<br \/>\nitself and directed the Management to  reinstate  the  first  respondent  with<br \/>\nbackwages for  the  period of non-employment.  The said order is challenged in<br \/>\nthis writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      The learned counsel for  the  petitioner  submitted  that  the<br \/>\ncomplaint itself is not maintainable because I.D.No.140 of 1997 is with regard<br \/>\nto  a  reference  which  dealt  only with the question of individual transfers<br \/>\nissued to six workmen.  As per o.204 dated 12.3.1997 there is  no  issue  with<br \/>\nregard to  the  alteration  of  conditions  of  service.   The learned counsel<br \/>\ntherefore submitted that to maintain a  complaint  under  section  33  of  the<br \/>\nIndustrial  Disputes Act, 1947, there should be a change in the c onditions of<br \/>\nservice of the workman and the said condition having  not  been  satisfied  in<br \/>\nthis  case,  the  second  respondent  has  no  jurisdiction  to  entertain the<br \/>\ncomplaint under section 33 of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act.    The  learned<br \/>\ncounsel  also  submitted  t hat the Model Standing Order 33(2)(b) contemplates<br \/>\nnot only express powers of right but also  implied  powers  as  well  and  the<br \/>\nManagement  exercised the implied powers and transferred the first respondent,<br \/>\nwhich the Management did earlier also by transferrin g the first respondent on<br \/>\nseveral occasions i.e., on 5.5.1994, 12.8.1994, 7.7.1995, 3.9.1995, etc.,  and<br \/>\nthe  first  respondent  also  accepted  the  said transfers without any demur.<br \/>\nAccording to the learned counsel, some of the transfer orders were passed a  t<br \/>\nthe  request  of the first respondent himself and therefore the power to issue<br \/>\ntransfer order is available  to  the  petitioner  Management  and  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent erroneously  passed  the  order  cancelling  the same.  The learned<br \/>\ncounsel contended that once t here is power to  transfer,  then  the  petition<br \/>\nunder section  33A concerning such transfer would not lie at all.  The learned<br \/>\ncounsel also cited the decision of the Full Bench reported in 1998 (4) LLN 804<br \/>\n(Correspondent, Malankara Syrian Catholic School, M arthandam v.    J.Rabinson<br \/>\nJacob  and  others)  and  stated  that the power of transfer may be express or<br \/>\nimplied and the implied power  can  be  reasonably  inferred  to  be  included<br \/>\ndirectly  in  the  power  of appointment and suo-motu recorded as an ancillary<br \/>\npower.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      The learned counsel for the first  respondent  submitted  that<br \/>\nthe  first  respondent  has been victimised and the management has no power to<br \/>\nissue transfer orders and justified the order of  the  second  respondent  and<br \/>\nprayed for dismissal of the wr on.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing on either side.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      The point in issue is whether the Labour Court is justified in<br \/>\ndirecting  the  petitioner  Management  to  cancel  the  transfer  order dated<br \/>\n5.7.1997 by giving a finding that the petitioner Management is not entitled to<br \/>\ntransfer the first responden order is  passed  in  the  complaint  made  under<br \/>\nsection 33A of the ID Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      To  attract Section 33-A, there must be a pending adjudication<br \/>\nduring which time the conditions of service should have been altered.    First<br \/>\nof  all  it has to be decided as to whether by the order of transfer the first<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s conditions o has been altered or not.  It is well settled in  law<br \/>\nthat  transfer  is  an  incident  of  service and the power of transfer may be<br \/>\nexercised by the management either expressly or impliedly.  The very fact that<br \/>\nthe first respondent himself was transferred seve ral times and the same  have<br \/>\nbeen accepted by the first respondent without any demur clearly shows that the<br \/>\nfirst  respondent  admitted  the  implied power of the Management to transfer,<br \/>\nthough not the same is stated expressly.  It is not the case  of  the  firs  t<br \/>\nrespondent  that  by  virtue  of  the  transfer  his status is affected or his<br \/>\nemoluments are reduced.  Unless there is reduction in the status or emoluments<br \/>\nthere is no alteration of conditions of service.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      The power of transfer vested with the management is considered<br \/>\nby this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in very many decisions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a)     In W.P.No.14291 of 1992 (The Workmen rep.  by  the  <a href=\"\/doc\/252161\/\">Secretary,<br \/>\nAddisons Paints  and  Chemicals  Ltd.,  Madras  v.  The Management of Addisons<br \/>\nPaints and Chemicals Ltd,  Madras  and<\/a>  another)  by  order  dated  23.4.1993,<br \/>\nJustice M.Srinivasan (as he then was s follows,<br \/>\n        &#8220;I  agree  with  the  learned  Judge  and  hold  that the absence of a<br \/>\nprovision in the Standing Orders does not disentitle the management to pass an<br \/>\norder of transfer, particularly when in the contract of service, the  employee<br \/>\nhas  undertaken  to  serve  the  c ny in any capacity as may be decided by the<br \/>\ncompany.   It  is  only  when  the  terms  of  the  contract  of  service  are<br \/>\ninconsistent  with  or  contrary to the provisions of the Standing Orders, the<br \/>\nsame is unenforceable.  When there is no provision in the Standing Orders with<br \/>\nreference to a particular term in the contract of service, the latter  can  be<br \/>\nenforced.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)     In  the  decisions reported in 2004 (3) LLJ 749 <a href=\"\/doc\/1455373\/\">(State of U.P.<br \/>\nv.  Gobardhan Lal), the Honourable  Supreme  Court<\/a>  in  paragraph  7  held  as<br \/>\nfollows,<br \/>\n        &#8220;7.     It  is  too  late  in  the  day  for any Government servant to<br \/>\ncontend that once appointed or posted in a particular place  or  position,  he<br \/>\nshould continue in such place, or position as long as he desires.  Transfer of<br \/>\nan  employee  is  not  only an inc herent in the terms of appointment but also<br \/>\nimplicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of  any  specific<br \/>\nindication  to  the  contra,  in  the  law governing or conditions of service.<br \/>\nUnless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise<br \/>\nof power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by<br \/>\nan authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer  cannot  lightly  be<br \/>\ninterfered  with  as  a  matter  of course or routine for any or every type of<br \/>\ngriev ance sought to be made.  Even administrative guidelines  for  regulating<br \/>\ntransfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to<br \/>\nthe  officer  or  servant  concerned  to approach their higher authorities for<br \/>\nredress but cannot have the con sequence of depriving or denying the competent<br \/>\nauthority to transfer a particular officer\/servant  to  any  place  in  public<br \/>\ninterest  and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the<br \/>\nofficial status is not affected adversely and there is no  infraction  of  any<br \/>\ncareer prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments.  This<br \/>\nCourt   has  often  reiterated  that  the  order  of  transfer  made  even  in<br \/>\ntransgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with,  as<br \/>\nthey  do n ot confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra,<br \/>\nshown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation  of  any  statutory<br \/>\nprovision.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (c)     A  Full  Bench  of this Court in the decision reported in 1998<br \/>\n(4) LLN 804 <a href=\"\/doc\/371447\/\">(Correspondent M.S.C.  School v.  J.Rabinson Jacob)<\/a>  at  paragraph<br \/>\n26 held as follows,<br \/>\n        &#8220;26.    From  the  resume  of  the  observations  made above it can be<br \/>\nsafely concluded that transfer is not necessarily included in  the  conditions<br \/>\nof service  as  a  term of the conditions of service.  Transfer is a specie of<br \/>\nappointment and being one of the of appointment, cannot  be  included  in  the<br \/>\nappointment itself unless it is expressly or impliedly provided for.  Thus the<br \/>\nassumption  that the power to transfer is included in the power of appointment<br \/>\nis unsustainable.  Power to transfer involving the cessat ion  of  appointment<br \/>\nwould depend  upon the nature of the transaction involved.  May be in peculiar<br \/>\nfacts where it does not bring about  any  alterations  of  the  conditions  of<br \/>\nservice,  change  of  master,  change  of  place,  alteration  in the terms of<br \/>\nappointment,  usage  prevalent  in  the  statutory   provisions,   rules   and<br \/>\nregulations   and   structure,   duration  of  employment  and  various  other<\/p>\n<p>circumstances may provide for a lead that it is an incident of service.    The<br \/>\nquestion  whether  it  is  an incident of service has to b e determined in the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of each and every case is a question of facts.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      Applying the above settled principle to the case on hand,  the<br \/>\nlearned  counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there is no finding given<br \/>\nby the second respondent as  to  how  the  first  respondent&#8217;s  conditions  of<br \/>\nservice is  changed.    The  seco dent held that there is no inherent right to<br \/>\ntransfer the workman.  However, the second respondent failed to  consider  the<br \/>\nimplied  power  of  transfer available to the management, which the management<br \/>\nexercised several times and the first  respondent  also  ac  cepted  the  same<br \/>\nwithout any demur.  In fact, in the evidence, WW-1 stated that 11 persons were<br \/>\ntransferred  and  therefore  it can be presumed that there is no victimisation<br \/>\nagainst the first respondent.  By virtue of transfer the conditions of service<br \/>\nof t he first respondent is not affected and that is not the case of the first<br \/>\nrespondent, i.e, either reduction in salary or reduction in rank.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.     The Labour Court having not given a  finding  as  to  how  the<br \/>\nfirst  respondent&#8217;s conditions of service is affected due to the transfer, the<br \/>\npetition filed under section 33-A of  the  ID  Act  is  not  maintainable  and<br \/>\nsection  33A  itself  is  not  attrac  at  being  the  position,  there  is no<br \/>\ncontravention of section 33(1)(a).  The finding given by the Labour Court that<br \/>\nthe transfer of the  first  respondent  is  bad  due  to  non-availability  of<br \/>\ninherent  right to transfer the first respondent herein, should be tre ated as<br \/>\nperverse finding because the first respondent  got  implied  power  which  the<br \/>\nManagement exercised  against the first respondent.  Hence the findings of the<br \/>\nLabour Court is not justified and the impugned order passed on Complaint  No.1<br \/>\nof 1997 is liabl e to be set aside and accordingly set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The writ petition is allowed as above.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>vr<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nLabour Court,<br \/>\nCoimbatore.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Management vs P. Swaminathan on 28 July, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 28\/07\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Writ Petition No.5726 of 1998 The Management Gedee Weiler Pvt. Ltd., Gopal Bagh, 1062 Avanashi road, Coimbatore 641 018 &#8230;Petitioner -Vs- 1.P. Swaminathan 2.The Presiding Officer, Labour [&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-29238","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 vs P. Swaminathan on 28 July, 2006 - 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-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Management vs P. Swaminathan on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-01T16:30:10+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=\"11 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-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Management vs P. Swaminathan on 28 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-01T16:30:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2116,\"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-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006\",\"name\":\"The Management vs P. Swaminathan on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-01T16:30:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Management vs P. Swaminathan on 28 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@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 vs P. Swaminathan on 28 July, 2006 - 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-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Management vs P. Swaminathan on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-01T16:30:10+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Management vs P. Swaminathan on 28 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-01T16:30:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006"},"wordCount":2116,"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-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006","name":"The Management vs P. Swaminathan on 28 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-01T16:30:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-vs-p-swaminathan-on-28-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Management vs P. Swaminathan on 28 July, 2006"}]},{"@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\/29238","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=29238"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29238\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}