{"id":5241,"date":"2005-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005"},"modified":"2017-11-20T23:41:08","modified_gmt":"2017-11-20T18:11:08","slug":"surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005","title":{"rendered":"Surendranagar District &#8230; vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Surendranagar District &#8230; vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Naolekar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.N. Variava, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  9668 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nSurendranagar District Panchayat and Anr.\t\t\t\t        \n\nRESPONDENT:\nJethabhat Pitamberbhai\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/10\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nS.N. Variava &amp; P.P. Naolekar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n<p>P.P. Naolekar, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe State of Gujarat had referred the industrial<br \/>\ndispute to the Labour Court, Surendranagar for<br \/>\nadjudication as to whether Shri Jethabhai Pitambarbhai<br \/>\nis to be reinstated at its original position with full<br \/>\npayment of salary.  The dispute arose as the appellant<br \/>\nherein had terminated the services of the respondent.<br \/>\nAfter notice the workman-respondent filed his claim<br \/>\ncontending therein that he had been in employment<br \/>\nwith appellant for last three years as a Daily Wager and<br \/>\nwas drawing an amount of Rs.22.70 per day; that on<br \/>\n1.4.1991, he was given an oral notice and was<br \/>\ndischarged from service.  At the time of his discharge<br \/>\nhe was not given any written notice or payment in lieu<br \/>\nthereof.  His seniority had not been considered, and<br \/>\nemployees who were junior to him were continued in<br \/>\nservice whereas he was terminated.  It was also alleged<br \/>\nthat after the termination of his service, fresh<br \/>\nrecruitments were made.  In response, the employer<br \/>\nhad filed its reply and contended that the respondent<br \/>\nwas called for work, which depended upon the<br \/>\navailability of the work and funds.  The respondent had<br \/>\nnever completed 240 days in any of the year right from<br \/>\nthe beginning; that the services of the respondent was<br \/>\norally terminated due to non availability of work  and<br \/>\nthere was no retrenchment or termination within the<br \/>\nmeaning of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947<br \/>\n(hereinafter to be referred to as the &#8216;Act&#8217;).<br \/>\n\tBoth the parties led evidence.  It is recorded by<br \/>\nthe Labour Court in Paragraph 4 of its Judgment that<br \/>\nExhibit 8 is the details pertaining to the attendance of<br \/>\napplicant, which has been produced with application.<br \/>\nThe xerox copy of attendance register and muster<br \/>\nregister has been produced at Ex.10.  On the basis of<br \/>\nthe oral evidence, the Labour Court came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that the workman proved his case that he<br \/>\nhad worked with the employer for the last 10 years and<br \/>\nthe last wages drawn by him was Rs.22.50 and that he<br \/>\nwas discharged on 1.4.1991.  That being the case,<br \/>\nthere was non compliance of the provisions of law and<br \/>\ntherefore set aside the termination order dated<br \/>\n1.4.1991 declaring it illegal.  The workman was<br \/>\nawarded 25% amount of his salary from 20.6.1996<br \/>\nonwards.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Department had unsuccessfully challenged the<br \/>\norder of reinstatement before the High Court.  The High<br \/>\nCourt held that the finding of the Labour Court that the<br \/>\nemployee had completed more than 240 days in a year<br \/>\non the basis of the deposition of the employee was not<br \/>\ncontroverted by showing any reliable evidence, and the<br \/>\nstatement showing the year wise presence in the<br \/>\nAttendance Register without proving it from the original<br \/>\nrecord, couldnot be relied upon. The High Court held<br \/>\nthat the employee had completed more than 240 days<br \/>\nin a year and that it was not open for it to go beyond<br \/>\nthe findings arrived at by the Labour Court.<br \/>\n\tFrom the tenor of the Judgment of the Labour<br \/>\nCourt and the High Court, it is apparent to us that the<br \/>\njudgment has proceeded on the premises as if the<br \/>\nburden of proof lies on the employer to prove that the<br \/>\nemployee had not worked with him for 240 days in the<br \/>\npreceding year immediately the date of his termination.<br \/>\nEven if we assume that the burden of proof lies on the<br \/>\nemployer, we find from the record that the employer<br \/>\nhas filed a Xerox copy of the Attendance Register and<br \/>\nthe Muster Roll which indicate that in the year 1984 the<br \/>\nworkman has worked for 38 days, in the year 1985-not<br \/>\na single day, in 1986- 72 days, in 1987-25 days, in<br \/>\n1988- not a single day, in 1989-92 days, in 1990- 82<br \/>\ndays, and in 1991 not a single day. The Attendance<br \/>\nRegister and the muster roll clearly indicate that in<br \/>\nnone of the years from 1984 to 1991 the workman ever<br \/>\nworked in the Department of his employer continuously<br \/>\nfor a year to constitute continuous service of one year.<br \/>\nThe claimant, apart from his oral evidence has not<br \/>\nproduced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or<br \/>\nwages for 240 days or record of his appointment or<br \/>\nengagement for that year to show that he has worked<br \/>\nwith the employer for 240 days to get the benefit under<br \/>\nSection 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.  It is now<br \/>\nwell settled that it is for the claimant to lead evidence<br \/>\nto show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a<br \/>\nyear preceding his termination.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t<a href=\"\/doc\/538062\/\">In Mohan Lal  vs. Management of M\/s. Bharat<br \/>\nElectronics Ltd.,<\/a> (1981)  3 SCC 225, it is said by<br \/>\nthis Court that before a workman can claim<br \/>\nretrenchment  not being in consonance of Section 25F<br \/>\nof the Industrial Disputes Act, he has to show that he<br \/>\nhas been in continuous service of not less than one<br \/>\nyear with the employer who had retrenched him from<br \/>\nservice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t<a href=\"\/doc\/770156\/\">In  Range Forest Officer vs. S.T. Hadimani,<\/a><br \/>\n(2002) 3 S.C.C. 25 &#8211; (At Page 26, Para 3), this<br \/>\nCourt held that &#8220;In our opinion the Tribunal was not<br \/>\nright in placing the onus on the management without<br \/>\nfirst determining  on the basis of cogent evidence that<br \/>\nthe respondent had worked for more than 240 days in<br \/>\nthe year preceding his termination.  It was the case of<br \/>\nthe claimant that he had so worked but this claim was<br \/>\ndenied by the appellant.  It was then for the claimant<br \/>\nto lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for<br \/>\n240 days in the year preceding his termination.  Filing<br \/>\nof an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour<br \/>\nand that cannot be regarded  as sufficient evidence for<br \/>\nany court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a<br \/>\nworkman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year.<br \/>\nNo proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or<br \/>\norder or record of appointment or engagement for this<br \/>\nperiod was produced by the workman.  On this ground<br \/>\nalone, the award is liable to be set aside.&#8221;<br \/>\n\tMore recently, in <a href=\"\/doc\/1338576\/\">Rajasthan State Ganganagar<br \/>\nS. Mills Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan &amp; Another<\/a> ,<br \/>\n(2004) 8 S.C.C. 161; <a href=\"\/doc\/536359\/\">Municipal Corporation,<br \/>\nFaridabad  vs. Siri Niwas,<\/a> (2004) 8 S.C.C. 195 and<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1221455\/\">M.P. Electricity Board vs. Hariram,<\/a>  (2004) 8<br \/>\nS.C.C. 246, this Court has reiterated the principal that<br \/>\nthe burden of proof lies on the workman to show that<br \/>\nhe had worked continuously for 240 days in the<br \/>\npreceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment<br \/>\nand it is for the workman to adduce an evidence apart<br \/>\nfrom examining himself to prove the factum of his<br \/>\nbeing in employment of the employer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn the face of the aforesaid authorities, the<br \/>\nLabour Court and the High Court committed an error in<br \/>\nplacing the burden on the employer to prove that the<br \/>\nworkman had not worked for 240 days with the<br \/>\nemployer.  The burden of proof having been on the<br \/>\nworkman, he has to adduce an evidence in support of<br \/>\nhis contention that he has complied with the<br \/>\nrequirement of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes<br \/>\nAct.  In the present case, apart from examining himself<br \/>\nin support of his contention the workman did not<br \/>\nproduce any material to prove the fact that he worked<br \/>\nfor 240 days.  In fact the employer had produced<br \/>\nbefore the Labour Court the Attendance Register of the<br \/>\nworkman  and the muster roll clearly showing that the<br \/>\nworkman had not worked continuously in the preceding<br \/>\nyear with the employer or that he had worked with the<br \/>\nemployer for 240 days in the preceding 12 months<br \/>\nprior to his alleged retrenchment.  In the absence of<br \/>\nevidence on record the Labour Court and the High<br \/>\nCourt have committed an error in law and fact in<br \/>\ndirecting reinstatement of the respondent-workman.<br \/>\nThat being the case, the award of the Labour Court and<br \/>\nthe judgment of the High Court, are set aside.  The<br \/>\nappeal is allowed.  However, in the circumstances of<br \/>\nthe case, there shall be no order as to costs.  If the<br \/>\nworkman has been reinstated in pursuance of the order<br \/>\nof the Labour Court, salary and other emoluments paid<br \/>\nto him shall not be recovered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Surendranagar District &#8230; vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005 Author: P Naolekar Bench: S.N. Variava, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 9668 of 2003 PETITIONER: Surendranagar District Panchayat and Anr. RESPONDENT: Jethabhat Pitamberbhai DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/10\/2005 BENCH: S.N. Variava &amp; P.P. Naolekar JUDGMENT: J U D G M E [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5241","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Surendranagar District ... vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005 - 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\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surendranagar District ... vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-20T18:11:08+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\\\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surendranagar District &#8230; vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-20T18:11:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1359,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005\",\"name\":\"Surendranagar District ... vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-20T18:11:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surendranagar District &#8230; vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Surendranagar District ... vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005 - 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\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surendranagar District ... vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-20T18:11:08+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\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surendranagar District &#8230; vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005","datePublished":"2005-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-20T18:11:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005"},"wordCount":1359,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005","name":"Surendranagar District ... vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-20T18:11:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendranagar-district-vs-jethabhat-pitamberbhai-on-25-october-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surendranagar District &#8230; vs Jethabhat Pitamberbhai on 25 October, 2005"}]},{"@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\/5241","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=5241"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5241\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5241"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5241"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}