{"id":33196,"date":"2008-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-16T17:09:56","modified_gmt":"2017-11-16T11:39:56","slug":"ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Punjab Khand Udyog Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Punjab Khand Udyog Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008<\/div>\n
C.W.P. No.1177 of 1988                                         -1-\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                   AT CHANDIGARH\n                             C.W.P. No.1177 of 1988\n                            Date of Decision:15.09.2008\n\nM\/s Punjab Khand Udyog Limited\n                                                        .....Petitioner\n           Vs.\nThe Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another\n                                                 .....Respondents\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL\nPresent:-   Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.\n            Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for respondent No.2.\n                        ****\nHARBANS LAL, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This petition has been moved by M\/s Punjab Khand Udyog<\/p>\n
Limited, Chandigarh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India<\/p>\n
for quashing the impugned award dated 22.11.1987 (Annexure P.3).<\/p>\n
            The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Sewa Singh-<\/p>\n
respondent- workman had joined as Cane Clerk with effect from 1.11.1980<\/p>\n
at monthly wages of Rs.700\/-. He was charge-sheeted on the grounds that<\/p>\n
(a) he allotted token Nos.80 and 81 and permanent serial No.34690 and<\/p>\n
34691 on parchi No.024570 without any vehicle entering the cane yard; (b)<\/p>\n
on his own, he allowed in writing two rehris on trolley slip (that too,<\/p>\n
without rehris being there) and thus he exceeded the authority vested in<\/p>\n
him; (c) he verified the variety and also forged the signature of Yard<\/p>\n
Supervisor; and (d) the trolley parchi No.024570 was of date 18.4.1983 and<\/p>\n
he accepted the parchi on 24.5.1983 without change of date from authorised<\/p>\n
officer. The inquiry was conducted and full opportunity was afforded to<\/p>\n
him. He was found guilty of charges (a) and (d) and was exonerated of<\/p>\n
charges (b) and (c). As the charges found against him were of serious<\/p>\n
nature, vide order dated 25.8.1984, his services were terminated. He raised
\n C.W.P. No.1177 of 1988                                           -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
a dispute before the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the<\/p>\n
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, `the Act’), on the basis of which a<\/p>\n
reference was made to the Labour Court, Gurdaspur as to find out whether<\/p>\n
the termination of his services was justified and in order. He submitted his<\/p>\n
claim before the Labour Court. The following issues were framed by the<\/p>\n
learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court:-\n<\/p>\n
             (i)     Whether a fair and proper domestic inquiry was held<\/p>\n
                     against the workman?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (ii)    If issue No.1 is not proved, whether termination of<\/p>\n
                     services of the workman is justified and in order?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (iii)   Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             After hearing the learned representatives of the parties and<\/p>\n
examining the evidence on record, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour<\/p>\n
Court, Gurdaspur in exercise of the power under Section 11A of the Act, set<\/p>\n
aside the order of termination of his services and directed that his six<\/p>\n
increments be stopped with cumulative and future effect and he be<\/p>\n
reinstated with continuity of service and full back-wages. Feeling aggrieved<\/p>\n
therewith, the petitioner has preferred this petition.<\/p>\n
             The workman filed the written statement inter-alia pleading that<\/p>\n
the Model Standing Orders are applicable to the petitioner- Company by<\/p>\n
virtue of the provisions of Section 12-A of the Industrial Employment<\/p>\n
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 as the petitioner- Company had not adopted\/<\/p>\n
framed the certified Standing Orders. Thus, the whole inquiry proceedings<\/p>\n
are without jurisdiction.      The charge-sheet was issued with a malafide<\/p>\n
intention and the charges were concocted against the answering respondent<\/p>\n
as the charge-sheet dated 21\/23.5.1983 contains charges for an event which
\n C.W.P. No.1177 of 1988                                            -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
was yet to happen. The inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with<\/p>\n
law and the workman was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself.<\/p>\n
Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed.<\/p>\n
            I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides<\/p>\n
perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer of the<\/p>\n
Labour Court with due care and circumspection.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
petitioner has strenuously urged that the learned Labour Court after holding<\/p>\n
the inquiry to be fair and proper and finding it not to be perverse in any<\/p>\n
manner ordered reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service<\/p>\n
and full back-wages in exercise of powers under Section 11A of the Act.<\/p>\n
This award as far as relates to reinstatement of workman with continuity of<\/p>\n
service is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being against the well-<\/p>\n
settled principles of law. The power under Section 11A of the Act can be<\/p>\n
exercised only if there is a want of good faith, victimization, unfair labour<\/p>\n
practices etc., on the part of the Management but once it was proved that<\/p>\n
none of these existed, no reinstatement could have been ordered.         The<\/p>\n
learned Labour Court has not noticed the fact that the charges against the<\/p>\n
workman are of serious nature involving dishonesty in connection with<\/p>\n
employee’s business and thus order of termination of the workman was fully<\/p>\n
justified. As ruled by the Supreme Court, dishonesty constitute a major<\/p>\n
misconduct which justifies the order of dismissal of an employee.<\/p>\n
            To tide over these contentions, Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of the workman- respondent contended that the<\/p>\n
respondent- workman has been reinstated and he is going to retire in April,<\/p>\n
2009. He further pressed into service that the punishment inflicted upon the
\n C.W.P. No.1177 of 1988                                           -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
workman- respondent being disproportionate to his alleged guilt, his<\/p>\n
termination order has been rightly set aside by invoking the provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 11A of the Act by the Labour Court. It is further argued that the<\/p>\n
Labour Court has unlawfully imposed the punishment of stoppage of six<\/p>\n
increments     with   cumulative   effect   of   the   respondent-     workman.<\/p>\n
Consequently, this part of the award is liable to be reversed.<\/p>\n
               I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival<\/p>\n
contentions.\n<\/p>\n
               The learned Labour Court has observed that “the perusal of the<\/p>\n
inquiry file would show that Mr. R.D. Sharma had conducted the inquiry<\/p>\n
fairly and impartially. It would appear that the workman never made any<\/p>\n
written request to the effect that assistance of a co-workman has not been<\/p>\n
provided to him. There was no reason to hold that the workman was not<\/p>\n
aware of his right to take the assistance of a co-worker. If the workman had<\/p>\n
not been afforded full opportunity or if the Inquiry Officer was not acting<\/p>\n
fairly towards him then he would have stated so in the reply dated 6.3.1984<\/p>\n
submitted to the show cause notice. The charges (a) and (d) proved against<\/p>\n
the workman are of a serious nature. He not only issued token numbers but<\/p>\n
also unauthorisedly allowed rehris on the requisition slip without change of<\/p>\n
date from the officer concerned. However, it is to be noted that the Cane<\/p>\n
grower in whose name the requisition slip was issued had not approached<\/p>\n
the respondent for payment of the price of sugarcane in question. Thus,<\/p>\n
gravity of the misconduct committed by the workman is lessened.” There<\/p>\n
does not seem to be any plausible reason to interfere with these<\/p>\n
observations. The learned Labour Court has rightly held that the extreme<\/p>\n
penalty of termination of services was not justified. The punishment being
\n C.W.P. No.1177 of 1988                                         -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
not in proportion to the guilt of the workman, the learned Labour Court had<\/p>\n
rightly directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman with continuity of<\/p>\n
service. The most crucial question to be determined herein as to whether<\/p>\n
the workman could be allowed full back-wages particularly, when the<\/p>\n
inquiry was found to be fair and proper and the charges (a) and (d) were<\/p>\n
fully established against him. In re: Rajinder Singh R. v. Depot Manager,<\/p>\n
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2000(3) Service<\/p>\n
Cases Today 1, the Apex Court held that the appellant would be entitled to<\/p>\n
continuity of service but not back-wages. In re: U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mitthu<\/p>\n
Singh,<\/a> 2006(4) Recent Services Judgments 489, the Apex Court ruled that<\/p>\n
the entitlement of a workman to get reinstatement does not necessarily<\/p>\n
result in payment of back-wages, which would be independent of<\/p>\n
reinstatement. While dealing with the prayer of back-wages, the factual<\/p>\n
scenario and the principle of justice, equity and good conscience has to be<\/p>\n
kept in view by the appropriate Court\/ Tribunal. Here in this case, the<\/p>\n
workman had put in about 3-3\/4 years’ service. In re: General Manager,<\/p>\n
Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh,<\/a> (2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases 591,<\/p>\n
the Apex Court held that “there is no rule of law that in each and every case,<\/p>\n
where a finding is recorded by the Court or Tribunal that the order of<\/p>\n
termination of service was illegal, an employee is entitled to full back-<\/p>\n
wages. A host of factors must be taken into account. One of the important<\/p>\n
factors, which has to be taken into consideration, is the length of service,<\/p>\n
which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has<\/p>\n
rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully<\/p>\n
terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back-wages keeping in view<\/p>\n
the fact that at his age and the qualification possessed by him, he may not be
\n C.W.P. No.1177 of 1988                                         -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of<\/p>\n
service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back-wages for<\/p>\n
the complete period, i.e., from the date of termination till the date of the<\/p>\n
award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly<\/p>\n
inappropriate.” In the case at hand, the workman has not put much service.<\/p>\n
As noted supra, he was found guilty qua charges (a) and (d).          As its<\/p>\n
corollary, he is held disentitled to get back-wages. In re: U.P. SRTC v.<\/p>\n
Mahendra Nath Tiwari and<\/a> another, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 118,<\/p>\n
the Apex Court held that “we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the respondent did not deserve the award of back-wages to him. In fact,<\/p>\n
he must consider himself lucky to have been reinstated and that we are not<\/p>\n
interfering with that reinstatement.”    In the present case, if the order<\/p>\n
regarding reinstatement with continuity of service is set aside the family of<\/p>\n
the workman will starve particularly when he is going to retire in April,<\/p>\n
2009 and he won’t be able to refund the wages disbursed to him till today.<\/p>\n
In view of the charges established against him, the Labour Court did not act<\/p>\n
in a right perspective to allow the full back-wages to the respondent-<\/p>\n
workman.\n<\/p>\n
            As a sequel of the above discussion, the only part of the award<\/p>\n
vide which full back-wages have been allowed is hereby set aside in the<\/p>\n
exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226\/227 of the Constitution<\/p>\n
of India.\n<\/p>\n
            Disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 15, 2008                               ( HARBANS LAL )\nrenu                                                  JUDGE\n\nWhether to be referred to the Reporter?       Yes\/No\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court M\/S Punjab Khand Udyog Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 C.W.P. No.1177 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1177 of 1988 Date of Decision:15.09.2008 M\/s Punjab Khand Udyog Limited …..Petitioner Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another …..Respondents CORAM:- […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Punjab Khand Udyog Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Punjab Khand Udyog Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-16T11:39:56+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\\\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Punjab Khand Udyog Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-16T11:39:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1696,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Punjab Khand Udyog Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-16T11:39:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Punjab Khand Udyog Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S Punjab Khand Udyog Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Punjab Khand Udyog Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-16T11:39:56+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\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Punjab Khand Udyog Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-16T11:39:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008"},"wordCount":1696,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","name":"M\/S Punjab Khand Udyog Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-16T11:39:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-punjab-khand-udyog-limited-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Punjab Khand Udyog Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/33196","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=33196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33196\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}