{"id":32691,"date":"2004-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004"},"modified":"2014-06-29T12:51:53","modified_gmt":"2014-06-29T07:21:53","slug":"k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"K. Subramoniam vs The Employees State Insurance on 13 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K. Subramoniam vs The Employees State Insurance on 13 February, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 13\/02\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.  Justice P.  SATHASIVAM\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr.  Justice S.R.  SINGHARAVELU\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No.928 of 1996\n\nK.  Subramoniam\nProprietor\nThangam Theater\nNagercoil.                                              ..  Appellant\n\nvs.\n\n1.  The Employees State Insurance\nCorporation rep.  by its\nRegional Director\nRegional Office\n143 Sterling Road, Madras 34.\n\n2.The Deputy Regional Director\nThe Employees State Insurance\nCorporation,\n1-B, Old Post Office Street,\nTallakulam, Madurai 625 002.\n\n3.  The Insurance Inspector Employees State Insurance Corp.,\n45\/2A High Road, Tirunelveli.           ..  Respondents\n\n\n\n                Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section  82  of  the\nEmployees  State  Insurance  Act,  1948  against  the  order  and decree dated\n24.04.1996 passed in ESIOP.No.5 of 1990 on  the  file  of  Principal  District\nJudge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil.\n\n!For appellant :  Mr.  G.  Ananthakrishnan\n                for M\/s.  T.S.  Gopalan &amp; Co.,\n\n^For respondents :  Mr.  Jayakumar\n                for M\/s.  Radha Srinivasan                                 ..\n\n:JUDGEMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.  SATHASIVAM,J.,)<\/p>\n<p>                The petitioner in ESIOP.No.5 of 199 0 on the file of Principal<br \/>\nDistrict  Judge,  Kanniyakumari  at  Nagercoil  is  the appellant in the above<br \/>\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  For convenience, we shall refer  the  parties  as  arrayed<br \/>\nbefore the Court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  The petitioner, who is a proprietor of Thangam Theater has<br \/>\nfiled  the said petition before the District Court under Section 75 (1) and 77<br \/>\nof the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948  (in  short  &#8220;the  E.S.I.    Act&#8221;),<br \/>\npraying  that  his  establishment  is  not covered under the provisions of the<br \/>\nE.S.I.  Act and not liable to pay any contribution to  the  respondents.    In<br \/>\nsupport  of  the  said  claim,  the  petitioner  has  examined  as many as six<br \/>\nwitnesses as Pws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.69 in support of their  claim.<br \/>\nOn  the  side  of  the Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short &#8220;E.S.I.<br \/>\nCorporation&#8221;), they examined their Officer by name Meenakshi Sundaram as  RW.1<br \/>\nand marked  Inspection  Report  dated  09.0  1.1990  as  Ex.B.1.   The learned<br \/>\nPrincipal District Judge, on consideration of oral and  documentary  evidence,<br \/>\nrefused  to  accept  the  case  of the petitioner, consequently, dismissed the<br \/>\npetition.  Hence, the present appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  Heard the learned counsel for the  appellant  as  well  as<br \/>\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  After taking us through the order of the learned Principal<br \/>\nDistrict  Judge,  the  learned counsel appearing for the appellant submit that<br \/>\nthough the Inspection Report dated 09.01.1990 P Ex.B.1 refers 20 persons under<br \/>\nemployment with the petitioner, in this appeal, he is concerned with the order<br \/>\npassed  in  so  far  as  five  Carpenters,  ranked  in  Serial  No.15  to  19.<br \/>\nAccordingly,  we  are  not  concerned  with  persons ranking 1 to 14 and 20 in<br \/>\nEx.B.1.  In the light of the limited issue, there is no need to refer all  the<br \/>\nfactual details which are applicable to 20 employees.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   According  to  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\nappellant, Serial No.15 to 19 never worked as Carpenter  with  the  petitioner<br \/>\nConcern  and the voucher dated 01.08.1989 annexed with Ex.B.1 does not support<br \/>\nthe stand taken by the Insurance Inspector, E.S.I.  Corporation,  Tirunelveli.<br \/>\nA  perusal of the voucher annexed with Ex.B.1 specifically refers Carpenters P<br \/>\n5 Numbers.  It further shows that a sum of Rs.1,090\/- was  paid  as  wages  to<br \/>\nthem on  01.08.1989.    It also shows that the said amount had been debited in<br \/>\nthe account of Thangam Theater, Nagercoil P petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  RW.1  is  the  E.S.I.    Inspector,  who   inspected   the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s establishment,  namely,  Thangam Theater on 10.01.1990.  The fact<br \/>\nthat RW.1 had inspected the establishment on the said date is not in  dispute.<br \/>\nIt is the evidence of RW.1 that at the time of his inspection, 14 persons were<br \/>\nactually found working in the Theater, another 2 persons were found working in<br \/>\nthe theater  and  2 persons in the Canteen.  According to him, on verification<br \/>\nof the records produced by the petitioner, it was noticed that on  01.08.1989,<br \/>\nmore than 20 persons were employed in petitioner&#8217;s establishment.  His enquiry<br \/>\nrevealed that 14 persons were employed in the Theater; 5 persons were employed<br \/>\nfor  doing maintenance work; one person is doing painting work and two persons<br \/>\nwere employed in the Canteen.  Ex.B.1 is the  Inspection  Report  prepared  by<br \/>\nRW.1.   RW.1  has  also  produced  xerox copy of the voucher, which is annexed<br \/>\nalong with Ex.B.1.  Based on the same, the respondents have claimed that  from<br \/>\n01.08.1989  the  petitioner establishment is liable to pay contribution as per<br \/>\nthe provisions of E.S.I.  Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  No doubt, on the side of the petitioner, the Proprietor of<br \/>\nThangam Theater was examined as PW.1 and 5 more persons as Pws.2  to  6.    As<br \/>\nsaid earlier, we are concerned with 5 Carpenters.  Hence, we are not referring<br \/>\nthe statement  made  by  witnesses with reference to others.  PW.6 &#8211; Assistant<br \/>\nManager of Thangam theater had deposed that one Jayakumar has stitched cushion<br \/>\nto the chairs and the same had done at the shop of Murugan, who  had  actually<br \/>\nmanufactured the  chairs.   He admitted in cross examination that additionally<br \/>\n191 seats were added during the year 1989 and the chairs were manufactured  by<br \/>\nthe Carpenter  Murugan  within 1 ?  months., Though PW.1 and PW.6 specifically<br \/>\ndispute the claim made in Ex.B.1, as rightly observed by the learned Principal<br \/>\nDistrict Judge, inasmuch as RW.1 after gathering various particulars from  the<br \/>\ndocuments  produced  by the petitioner at the time of his inspection, prepared<br \/>\nhis Inspection Report Ex.B.1, there is nothing to disbelieve the  contents  of<br \/>\nthe same  as  well  as  his  evidence  as  RW.1.  RW.1 had only discharged his<br \/>\nofficial duty by making an inspection and prepared the report Ex.B.1, based on<br \/>\nthe materials \/ ledgers produced by the petitioner,  in  order  to  bring  the<br \/>\npetitioner establishment under the coverage of E.S.I.  Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.    It  is  also  seen  from  the  order  impugned  that  on<br \/>\nappreciation of oral and documentary evidence  let  in  by  both  side,  after<br \/>\naccepting  the  evidence  of  RW.1 and Ex.B.1 , the learned Principal District<br \/>\nJudge came to a specific conclusion that the carpentry work was being done  in<br \/>\nthe theater  itself.    In  the light of the stand taken by the petitioner, we<br \/>\nalso perused all the relevant documents, including voucher,  Ex.B.1,  evidence<br \/>\nof  PW.1, PW.6 and RW.1 and we are satisfied that RW.1 has prepared his report\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Ex.B.1 only on the basis of the records maintained by the petitioner.  Since<br \/>\nthe respondents, particularly RW.1  has  established  their  stand  by  giving<br \/>\nadequate  reasons  and materials, the learned Principal District Judge rightly<br \/>\napproved the same, we are of the view that there  is  no  need  to  refer  the<br \/>\ndecisions relied  on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.  When<br \/>\nthe facts are clear, there is no need to traverse to the decisions.   Inasmuch<br \/>\nas interference  by  this  Court  as per Section 82 (2) of the E.S.I.  Act, is<br \/>\nonly on substantial question of law, in the light of the above discussion  and<br \/>\nof the fact that the learned Principal District Judge considered and confirmed<br \/>\nthe factual  conclusion arrived at by the Officers of the E.S.I.  Corporation,<br \/>\nwe do not find any valid ground to disagree with the same.  On the other hand,<br \/>\nwe are in agreement with the said conclusion.  Consequently, the appeal  fails<br \/>\nand the same is dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>kh<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Prl.  District Judge<br \/>\nKanniyakumari at Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Record Keeper<br \/>\nV.R.  Section, High Court,<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K. Subramoniam vs The Employees State Insurance on 13 February, 2004 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 13\/02\/2004 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice S.R. SINGHARAVELU Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.928 of 1996 K. Subramoniam Proprietor Thangam Theater Nagercoil. .. Appellant vs. 1. The [&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-32691","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>K. Subramoniam vs The Employees State Insurance on 13 February, 2004 - 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\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Subramoniam vs The Employees State Insurance on 13 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-29T07:21:53+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Subramoniam vs The Employees State Insurance on 13 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-29T07:21:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1076,\"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\\\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004\",\"name\":\"K. Subramoniam vs The Employees State Insurance on 13 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-29T07:21:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Subramoniam vs The Employees State Insurance on 13 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"K. Subramoniam vs The Employees State Insurance on 13 February, 2004 - 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\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Subramoniam vs The Employees State Insurance on 13 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-29T07:21:53+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Subramoniam vs The Employees State Insurance on 13 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-29T07:21:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004"},"wordCount":1076,"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\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004","name":"K. Subramoniam vs The Employees State Insurance on 13 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-29T07:21:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-subramoniam-vs-the-employees-state-insurance-on-13-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Subramoniam vs The Employees State Insurance on 13 February, 2004"}]},{"@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\/32691","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=32691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32691\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}