{"id":52356,"date":"2009-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-04-29T12:38:04","modified_gmt":"2016-04-29T07:08:04","slug":"the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Executive Director Keltron … vs The Workmen on 1 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Executive Director Keltron … vs The Workmen on 1 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 201 of 2000(Y)\n\n\n\n1. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KELTRON CONTROLS\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THE WORKMEN, KELTRON CONTROLS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :01\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                          S. SIRI JAGAN, J\n               ................................................\n                       O.P. No. 201 of 2000\n               .................................................\n         Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The Management in I.D. No. 5\/89 before the Industrial<\/p>\n
Tribunal, Allapuzha is the petitioner herein who is challenging<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 award passed by the Tribunal in that I.D. The issue referred<\/p>\n
for adjudication was the validity of the termination of service of 27<\/p>\n
security personnel employed by the Management company through<\/p>\n
a contractor.   Originally by Ext.P1 award dated 3.3.1990, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal held that since the Contract Labour (Regulation and<\/p>\n
Abolition) Act prescribes that a principal employer who intends to<\/p>\n
engage workers through a contractor and the contractor who<\/p>\n
employs 20 or more workman shall get registration\/licence under<\/p>\n
the Act and the Management company and the contractor did not<\/p>\n
obtain such licence, the contract between the management and the<\/p>\n
contractor is a sham contract and therefore the workman are<\/p>\n
employees of the management themselves and that the workmen<\/p>\n
were terminated from service without following the procedure<\/p>\n
prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act.                   The Tribunal<\/p>\n
directed that the workman shall be allowed to continue in their<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 201 of 2000             -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
respective places in which they were working, till they are replaced<\/p>\n
by security guards\/ Supervisors through Kerala Public Service<\/p>\n
Commission. The workmen were directed to be reinstated, but<\/p>\n
backwages were limited to from the date of publication of the<\/p>\n
award. Both the management and the workmen challenged the<\/p>\n
award to the extent the same was not favourable to them. By<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 common judgment, in O.P. Nos. 10352 and 10766 of 1990 a<\/p>\n
learned single Judge of this court set aside the award holding that<\/p>\n
security guards in question are not workmen as defined under the<\/p>\n
Industrial Disputes Act denying the relief to them. The workmen<\/p>\n
challenged the same in W.A. No. 441 of 1992. By Ext.P3 judgment,<\/p>\n
a Division Bench of this Court held that although the mere absence<\/p>\n
of registrations\/licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and<\/p>\n
Abolition) Act does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
contract is a sham transaction, the question as to whether the<\/p>\n
workmen are employees of the principal employer depends on<\/p>\n
evidence adduced by the parties before the Tribunal. In that view,<\/p>\n
the Division Bench remanded the matter for fresh consideration, on<\/p>\n
the basis of the evidence to be adduced by both sides. Ext.P3<\/p>\n
judgment is dated 17.6.1998. Thereafter the Industrial Tribunal<\/p>\n
again considered the matter. By that time, the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 201 of 2000              -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
rendered another decision, namely Secretary, Haryana State<\/p>\n
Electricity Board v. Suresh and Others<\/a> [1999 (3) SCC 601]<\/p>\n
which held that the mere absence of registration\/ licence under the<\/p>\n
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act itself would render<\/p>\n
the contract between the principal employer and the contractor, a<\/p>\n
sham transaction and that the workmen are employees of the<\/p>\n
principal employer. Relying on that decision without going into any<\/p>\n
other question as directed by the Division Bench, the Tribunal by<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 award again held that in the absence of the registration\/<\/p>\n
licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act<\/p>\n
the contract between the petitioner and the contractor is a sham<\/p>\n
arrangement and therefore the workers concerned were the<\/p>\n
employees of the management establishment. On that finding the<\/p>\n
Tribunal by Ext.P4 award, again re-issued the same direction as in<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 award except regarding backwages. That award is under<\/p>\n
challenge before me. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 award on<\/p>\n
the ground that by Ext.P3 judgment a Division Bench of this court<\/p>\n
had held that mere absence of registration\/licence under the above<\/p>\n
said Act itself would not be sufficient to hold that the workmen are<\/p>\n
workmen of the principal employer and directed the Tribunal to<\/p>\n
consider the matter on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 201 of 2000             -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
parties. However, the Tribunal has without considering anything<\/p>\n
else only on the basis of the absence of registrations\/licence held<\/p>\n
that the workman are direct workman of the petitioner<\/p>\n
management. According to the petitioner this is in direct violation<\/p>\n
of Ext.P3 judgment and for that reason alone Ext.P4 liable to be<\/p>\n
quashed.     He would further contend that in this case the<\/p>\n
management had adduced sufficient evidence to show that the<\/p>\n
contract between the employer and the contractor is a bonafide,<\/p>\n
genuine contract for employment of contract labour and therefore<\/p>\n
the workmen are workmen of the contractor and not that of the<\/p>\n
principal employer.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The 1st respondent union would support the award.<\/p>\n
According to them, the absence of registration \/ licence is one of<\/p>\n
the major factors which would support the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
contract is a sham contract, in view of the decision of the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in Haryana State Electricity Board’s case.        They would<\/p>\n
further contend that the evidence available before the Tribunal was<\/p>\n
sufficient to come to the conclusion that the entire transaction was<\/p>\n
only a sham transaction to avoid the legal consequences flowing<\/p>\n
from the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of the workmen in<\/p>\n
question.\n<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 201 of 2000              -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
     3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n
     4. Apart from the decision of Dena Nath and others v.<\/p>\n
National Fertilizers Ltd. and others<\/a> [1992(1) SCC 695] relied<\/p>\n
upon by this court in Exts.P2 and P3 judgments and the decision in<\/p>\n
Haryana State Electricity Board’s case several other decisions have<\/p>\n
been cited before me, namely the Steel Authority of India<\/p>\n
Limited and others v. National Union Waterfront Workers<\/p>\n
and others<\/a> [2001 (7) SCC 1] and APSRTC and others v.<\/p>\n
Sreenivas Reddy and others [2006 (3) SCC 674].             I am of<\/p>\n
opinion that the conclusion which can be drawn from all these<\/p>\n
decisions is that there cannot be any strait-Jacketed formula for<\/p>\n
deciding the question as to whether a contract for employment of<\/p>\n
contract labour is a sham contract or not. It depends on the facts<\/p>\n
and circumstances of each case. The mere fact that there was no<\/p>\n
registration\/licence under the contract Labour (Regulation and<\/p>\n
Abolition) Act itself would not lead to the conclusion that it is a<\/p>\n
sham transaction as held in Steel Authority of India Limited’s case.<\/p>\n
Of course the Haryana State Electricity Board’s case was not<\/p>\n
referred to in steel authority of India Ltd’s case. But Dena Nath’s<\/p>\n
case which was approved by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority<\/p>\n
of India limited’s case certainly holds that the absence of<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 201 of 2000            -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
registration \/licence is not the absolute criterion to decide the<\/p>\n
question either way.    I am of opinion that that question would<\/p>\n
largely depend upon the contract itself. In other words, the terms<\/p>\n
of the contract between the principal employer and the contractor<\/p>\n
should be the main determining factor to decide the question as to<\/p>\n
whether the contract is a sham contract or not. There would be<\/p>\n
other factors as well, such as whether the work in question is of<\/p>\n
perennial nature, whether the work is in the premises of the<\/p>\n
employer, the control of the principal employer on the workman,<\/p>\n
the extent of supervision of the work of the workman by the<\/p>\n
principal employer, whether the work is an integral part of the<\/p>\n
overall work of the principal employer and the like. The Tribunal<\/p>\n
has to come to a conclusion after considering the evidence on all<\/p>\n
these aspects taken together instead of deciding the question<\/p>\n
solely on the basis of absence of licence\/registration under the<\/p>\n
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. In Ext.P4 award,<\/p>\n
the Tribunal has decided the matter only on the basis of absence of<\/p>\n
registration\/licence, relying upon the decision in Haryana State<\/p>\n
Electricity Board’s case which should be taken to be impliedly<\/p>\n
overruled to that extent by the decision in Steel Authority of India<\/p>\n
Ltd’s case. In view of my above findings, necessarily the matter<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 201 of 2000               -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
has to be remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for a fresh<\/p>\n
adjudication taking into account the entire evidence adduced by<\/p>\n
both sides in accordance with the direction hereinabove.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, Ext.P4 is quashed.        The Tribunal is directed to<\/p>\n
re-adjudicate the dispute in the light of the finding hereinabove.<\/p>\n
Fresh award shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any<\/p>\n
rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this<\/p>\n
judgment.      The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on<\/p>\n
18.12.2009.\n<\/p>\n
      The original petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                     Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                         S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
\nrhs<\/p>\n
                            \/\/ True copy \/\/<\/p>\n
                             PA to Judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Executive Director Keltron … vs The Workmen on 1 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 201 of 2000(Y) 1. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KELTRON CONTROLS … Petitioner Vs 1. THE WORKMEN, KELTRON CONTROLS … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.SIRI […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Executive Director Keltron ... vs The Workmen on 1 December, 2009 - 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\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Executive Director Keltron ... vs The Workmen on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-29T07:08:04+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\\\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Executive Director Keltron … vs The Workmen on 1 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-29T07:08:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1412,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009\",\"name\":\"The Executive Director Keltron ... vs The Workmen on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-29T07:08:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Executive Director Keltron … vs The Workmen on 1 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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 Executive Director Keltron ... vs The Workmen on 1 December, 2009 - 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\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Executive Director Keltron ... vs The Workmen on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-29T07:08:04+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\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Executive Director Keltron … vs The Workmen on 1 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-29T07:08:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009"},"wordCount":1412,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009","name":"The Executive Director Keltron ... vs The Workmen on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-29T07:08:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-executive-director-keltron-vs-the-workmen-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Executive Director Keltron … vs The Workmen on 1 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/52356","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=52356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}