{"id":32309,"date":"2011-05-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011"},"modified":"2018-08-13T22:15:33","modified_gmt":"2018-08-13T16:45:33","slug":"new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"New vs State on 2 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">New vs State on 2 May, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/1426\/2011\t 7\/ 7\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. 1426 of 2011\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nNEW\nGUJARAT MAZDOOR MANCH - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT THROUGH LABOUR COMMISSIONER &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nUT MISHRA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR AL SHARMA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nYOGEN N PANDYA for Respondent(s) : 2, \nNOTICE SERVED for\nRespondent(s) : 3, \nRULE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) :\n3, \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: 02\/05\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties. No<br \/>\nappearance is filed by respondent No.3 though notice is served to<br \/>\nrespondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn<br \/>\n19th April, 2010, following order is passed by this Court<br \/>\n:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Heard<br \/>\nlearned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties. Notice<br \/>\nissued by this Court to respondent No.3, but, no appearance is filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tConsidering<br \/>\nquestion raised and involved in present petition, this matter<br \/>\nrequires detailed examination by this Court, hence, RULE<br \/>\nreturnable<br \/>\non  2 nd<br \/>\nMay, 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nAGP Ms. Bhatt waives service of notice of rule on behalf of<br \/>\nrespondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Yogen Pandya waives service of notice of rule on behalf<br \/>\nof respondent No.2.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tToday,<br \/>\nwith consent of all learned advocates, matter is taken up for final<br \/>\nhearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\npresent petition, petitioner has challenged order passed by Labour<br \/>\nCommissioner, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar dated 27th<br \/>\nJanuary, 2010, wherein, Labour Commissioner has come to conclusion<br \/>\nwhile exercising powers under Section 12(5) of Industrial Disputes<br \/>\nAct, 1947 that dispute which has been raised by petitioner Union is<br \/>\nnot referred for adjudication to concerned Industrial Tribunal,<br \/>\nbecause, that workman is required to be made permanent or not, that<br \/>\nfact is to be considered individually on merits by employer.<br \/>\nTherefore, industrial dispute raised by petitioner Union is not<br \/>\nreferred for adjudication. The affidavit in reply is filed by<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 &#8211; Harshadbhai Ramniklal Shah, Deputy Labour<br \/>\nCommissioner. The relevant averments made in para 4 to 8 are quoted<br \/>\nas under :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;4.\tI<br \/>\nhumbly say and submit that the present petitioner has put forward<br \/>\ndemand before the respondent No.2 company and respondent No.3,<br \/>\ncontractor by the vide charter of demand dated 10.09.2009 were<br \/>\nconcerning contract workers engaged by the respondent No.3<br \/>\ncontractor.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tI<br \/>\nsay and submit that on examining the justification of demand at Page<br \/>\n14 &amp; 15 it makes ample clear that the petitioner itself is not<br \/>\nclear about its demand whether it is for a worker engaged by<br \/>\ncontractor\/ contractors and they are seeking the relief for workers<br \/>\nor want to abolish the contract system in specific process of<br \/>\ncontract.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIt<br \/>\nis submitted that in above mentioned demands bearing I D Case No.90<br \/>\nof 2009 the failure report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes Act, 1947 was submitted by Conciliation Officer, Anand to<br \/>\nthe Respondent No.1. Labour Commissioner on 16.09.2010. On the basis<br \/>\nof the contents of the conciliation case and confidential report of<br \/>\nthe conciliation officer, Anand, the respondent No.1 authority<br \/>\nempowered vide Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was<br \/>\nnot satisfied and came to conclusion that there was no case for<br \/>\nreference and refused to make reference to the Industrial Tribunal<br \/>\nfor adjudication vide order dated 27.01.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIt<br \/>\nis submitted that the order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the Respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 is reasoning one and self explanatory. The nature of demands is<br \/>\nnot specific, names of the workers, the date of joining particular<br \/>\nwork carried out by them and under which contractor are they were<br \/>\nworking for, is not mentioned. Without specific details the dispute<br \/>\ncannot be adjudicated on merits of the individual workman.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIt<br \/>\nis submitted that unless the list of concerned contract workers for<br \/>\nwhich disputes is raised and the names of contractor by whom they<br \/>\nwere employed along with mentioning process in which they were<br \/>\nengaged and carried out their functioning and also their dates of<br \/>\njoining submitted, their dispute cannot be adjudicated. The list of<br \/>\ncontracts workers was not submitted by the petitioner Union during<br \/>\nconciliation proceedings. Hence the order dated 27.01.2010 is just<br \/>\nand reasonable.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis necessary to note that industrial dispute raised by petitioner<br \/>\nUnion, page 10 and 11, dated 10th September, 2009, where,<br \/>\ncharter of demand has been raised against Manager &#8211; respondent<br \/>\nNo.2 and Labour Contractor Mr. S.M. Pathan &#8211; respondent No.3 on<br \/>\nthe ground that contract system which is going on with establishment<br \/>\nthat is found to be sham, bogus and not genuine. It is merely a paper<br \/>\narrangement made by employer and contractor and such labour contract<br \/>\nis an eye-wash, bogus. Therefore, employees those who are working<br \/>\nunder contractor, are considered to be an employee of respondent No.2\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; employer and they are entitled benefit of permanent workman<br \/>\nwith all salary and other allowances.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nsecond dispute is raised that from date of joining during aforesaid<br \/>\nperiod subsequently whatever less benefit has been paid to workman,<br \/>\nthey should have to be reimbursed by 10% more to workman working with<br \/>\ncontractor. In support of aforesaid dispute after intervention by<br \/>\nConciliation Officer, Anand, statement of claim justification has<br \/>\nbeen filed by petitioner Union and thereafter, Conciliation Officer<br \/>\nin case No.90 of 2009 submitted failure report under Section 12(4) of<br \/>\nID Act, 1947. The Labour Commissioner being an appropriate Government<br \/>\nhas framed opinion of not referring dispute for adjudication. The<br \/>\norder dated 27th January, 2010 is absolutely suggests<br \/>\nnon-application of mind by appropriate Government. The appropriate<br \/>\nGovernment has not considered dispute\/ demand raised by Union and<br \/>\nalso not considered justification submitted by Union. The original<br \/>\ndemand which has been raised by Union was that whatever contract<br \/>\nsystem which has been going on with employer that has been sham,<br \/>\nbogus and not genuine, it is merely a paper arrangement between<br \/>\nemployer and contractor. There is no reflection at all in order of<br \/>\nrefusing reference dated 27th January, 2010. The<br \/>\nappropriate Government &#8211; respondent No.1 has not even gone<br \/>\nthrough failure report properly and without application of mind,<br \/>\naforesaid decision has been taken under Section 12(5) of ID Act,<br \/>\n1947.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nappropriate Government cannot decide merits of industrial dispute<br \/>\nraised by Union. The appropriate Government must have to consider one<br \/>\naspect that industrial dispute raised by Union is in existence or<br \/>\nnot, then, it must have to refer for adjudication. In this case,<br \/>\nthere is a dispute raised by Union that contract system is sham,<br \/>\nbogus and merely a paper arrangement, then, reason which has been<br \/>\ngiven for not referring dispute is altogether different than demand<br \/>\nraised by Union, therefore, it is a clear case of non-application of<br \/>\nmind by appropriate Government. When industrial dispute or demand<br \/>\nraised by Union, at that occasion, question of adjudication on merits<br \/>\ndoes not arise by appropriate Government. That view has been taken by<br \/>\nApex court in case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and<br \/>\nanother v. State of Bihar and others<br \/>\nreported in AIR 1989 SC 1565<br \/>\nand another recent decision of Division Bench of this Court in case<br \/>\nof <a href=\"\/doc\/1265601\/\">Thakor Nagjibhai Bhailal v. IPCL., Now<br \/>\nAmalgamated<\/a> with Reliance Inds. Ltd. &amp; Ors., reported<br \/>\nin 2011-I-CLR 182.\n<\/p>\n<p>This Court has also considered similar aspect in case when demand<br \/>\nraised by Union that contract system is sham, bogus and merely a<br \/>\npaper arrangement, in that circumstances, industrial dispute must<br \/>\nhave to be referred<br \/>\nfor adjudication by appropriate Government in Special Civil<br \/>\nApplication No.662 of 2011 dated 26th<br \/>\nApril, 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTherefore,<br \/>\nin light of these facts and also considering affidavit in reply filed<br \/>\nby Deputy Labour Commissioner, where also, exact demand which has<br \/>\nbeen raised by petitioner Union at page 10 and 11 has been totally<br \/>\nignored by appropriate Government, order passed by appropriate<br \/>\nGovernment dated 27th<br \/>\nJanuary, 2010 not to refer industrial dispute for adjudication is<br \/>\nhereby quashed and set aside with a direction to appropriate<br \/>\nGovernment &#8211; respondent No.1 to reconsider entire matter afresh<br \/>\nand consider demand notice given by Union as well as justification<br \/>\ngiven by Union in support of demand and also to consider defence<br \/>\nraised by employer as well as contractor and then to examine whether<br \/>\nin fact contract system which has been going on with employer is<br \/>\nsham, bogus and merely a paper arrangement or not and thereafter, to<br \/>\ntake appropriate decision under Section 12(5) of Industrial Disputes<br \/>\nAct, 1947, after considering failure report submitted by Conciliation<br \/>\nOfficer within a period of two months from date of receiving copy of<br \/>\npresent order and communicate decision of reference to petitioner<br \/>\nUnion immediately.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccordingly,<br \/>\nrule is made absolute to aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n<p>#Dave<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court New vs State on 2 May, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/1426\/2011 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1426 of 2011 ========================================================= NEW GUJARAT MAZDOOR MANCH &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH LABOUR COMMISSIONER &amp; 2 &#8211; [&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-32309","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>New vs State on 2 May, 2011 - 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\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New vs State on 2 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-13T16:45:33+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"New vs State on 2 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-13T16:45:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1308,\"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\\\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011\",\"name\":\"New vs State on 2 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-13T16:45:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New vs State on 2 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"New vs State on 2 May, 2011 - 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\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New vs State on 2 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-13T16:45:33+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"New vs State on 2 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-13T16:45:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011"},"wordCount":1308,"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\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011","name":"New vs State on 2 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-13T16:45:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-vs-state-on-2-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New vs State on 2 May, 2011"}]},{"@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\/32309","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=32309"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32309\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32309"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32309"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32309"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}