{"id":56882,"date":"2009-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-12T03:53:16","modified_gmt":"2017-02-11T22:23:16","slug":"madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Madan Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 11 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Madan Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 11 February, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                      AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                           C.W.P. No. 2149 of 2009.\n                                      Date of Decision : February 11, 2009.\n\n\nMadan Kumar.                                                  .... Petitioner.\n\n                                 Versus.\n\n\nPresiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat,                    ...Respondents.<\/pre>\n<p>and another.\n<\/p>\n<p>CORAM: HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.<\/p>\n<pre>Present:    Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate,\n            for the petitioner.\n\n\nAUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>            In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated<\/p>\n<p>10.11.2008 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour<\/p>\n<p>Court, Panipat, vide which the claim as made by the petitioner-workman has<\/p>\n<p>been rejected on the ground that the petitioner-workman has failed to prove<\/p>\n<p>that he has worked with the respondent-management for more than 240 days<\/p>\n<p>in the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination and further that<\/p>\n<p>the claim with regard to non compliance of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the<\/p>\n<p>Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are also not<\/p>\n<p>acceptable as the subsequent appointments have been made on regular basis<\/p>\n<p>whereas the petitioner-workman was appointed on daily wage basis.<\/p>\n<p>            Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the positive<\/p>\n<p>assertion was made by the petitioner-workman before the Labour Court in his<\/p>\n<p>statement that he has been working with the respondent-management for the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> C.W.P. No. 2149 of 2009.                                                -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>last two years i.e. from 01.01.1996 to 18.03.1998. After an assertion to that<\/p>\n<p>effect, it was for the respondents to produce the records before the Labour<\/p>\n<p>Court to show that the petitioner-workman has not worked with the<\/p>\n<p>respondent-management for the period claimed by the petitioner-workman<\/p>\n<p>for which the onus was on the respondent-management.<\/p>\n<p>            He contends that since the records have not been produced by<\/p>\n<p>the respondent-management before the Labour Court, an adverse inference<\/p>\n<p>should have been taken against the respondent-management whereas<\/p>\n<p>respondent-management has been given benefit of non production of<\/p>\n<p>records.\n<\/p>\n<p>            He further contends that it has come on record that six persons<\/p>\n<p>have been appointed after the termination of the petitioner-workman by the<\/p>\n<p>respondent-management but still finding has been given by the Court that<\/p>\n<p>there is no violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act.<\/p>\n<p>            I have heard counsel for the petitioner-workman and have gone<\/p>\n<p>through the records of the case as well as impugned award. The contention<\/p>\n<p>of counsel for the petitioner-workman that non production of records by the<\/p>\n<p>respondent-management should have been taken in favour of the petitioner-<\/p>\n<p>workman rather than the Court has proceeded to give benefit to the<\/p>\n<p>respondent-management for their non production of records, he relies upon<\/p>\n<p>the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gurdaspur<\/p>\n<p>Sugar Mills Limited Versus Dalbir Singh and others, 2001 (1) R.S.J. 468,<\/p>\n<p>to submit that the onus of production of records was on the respondent-<\/p>\n<p>management and non production thereof would be taken as a presumption<\/p>\n<p>against the respondent-management. He further contends that the Judgment<\/p>\n<p>states that burden of proving non completion of 240 days is on the employer<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> C.W.P. No. 2149 of 2009.                                                -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>and that have not been discharged. On the basis of non production of<\/p>\n<p>records, the benefit for which the petitioner-workman was entitled to, has<\/p>\n<p>not been granted to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>             This contention of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted<\/p>\n<p>in the light of the Judgment of Hon&#8217;ble the Supreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n<p>Range Forest Officer Versus S.T. Hadimani, 2002(3) Supreme Court<\/p>\n<p>Cases, 25, in para-3 held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;3.    For the view we are taking, it is not necessary to go into<\/p>\n<p>            the question as to whether the appellant is an &#8220;industry&#8221; or<\/p>\n<p>            not, though reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in<\/p>\n<p>            <a href=\"\/doc\/315034\/\">State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar.          In<\/a> our<\/p>\n<p>            opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the<\/p>\n<p>            management without first determining on the basis of cogent<\/p>\n<p>            evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240<\/p>\n<p>            days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of<\/p>\n<p>            the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by<\/p>\n<p>            the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to<\/p>\n<p>            show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year<\/p>\n<p>            preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own<\/p>\n<p>            statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as<\/p>\n<p>            sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the<\/p>\n<p>            conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in<\/p>\n<p>            a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or<\/p>\n<p>            order or record of appointment or engagement for this period<\/p>\n<p>            was produced by the workman.         On this ground alone, the<\/p>\n<p>            award is liable to be set aside. &#8220;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> C.W.P. No. 2149 of 2009.                                                 -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>             This judgment has further been followed by Hon&#8217;ble the<\/p>\n<p>Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar Mills Limited<\/p>\n<p>Versus State of Rajasthan 2004 (8) S.C.C. 161, and further in the case of<\/p>\n<p>R.M. Yalleti Versus The Assistant Executive Engineer, 2006(1) S.C.C.<\/p>\n<p>106.<\/p>\n<p>             The next contention of counsel for the petitioner-workman with<\/p>\n<p>regard to violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act, also cannot be<\/p>\n<p>accepted for the reason that the appointments which are alleged to have been<\/p>\n<p>made after the termination of service of petitioner-workman, were all on<\/p>\n<p>regular basis. It is an admitted position that the petitioner-workman was<\/p>\n<p>appointed on daily wage basis and the procedure prescribed for appointment<\/p>\n<p>on regular basis were not followed in the present case when the appointment<\/p>\n<p>of workman was made.\n<\/p>\n<p>             Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that nothing has<\/p>\n<p>come on record that six appointments which have been made subsequent to<\/p>\n<p>the appointment of the petitioner-workman was actually as per statutory<\/p>\n<p>rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>             This assertion of counsel for the petitioner-workman also<\/p>\n<p>cannot be accepted for the reason that there is a specific assertion on behalf<\/p>\n<p>of respondent-management in the written statement and thereafter, in the<\/p>\n<p>statements made before the Labour Court as well as appointment letter<\/p>\n<p>which has been placed on record as Ex. M5 shows that the said<\/p>\n<p>appointments are in accordance with statutory rules. The onus, therefore,<\/p>\n<p>after the production of records with regard to that assertion was upon the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner-workman that the said appointments were not in accordance with<\/p>\n<p>statutory rules, which the petitioner has failed to prove.<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> C.W.P. No. 2149 of 2009.                                                -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>            That being so, no illegality in the award dated 10.11.2008<\/p>\n<p>(Annexure-P-5), passed by the Labour Court, Panipat, can be said to have<\/p>\n<p>been committed which would call for interference by this Court.<\/p>\n<p>            In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed.<\/p>\n<p>                                      (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)<br \/>\n                                                JUDGE<br \/>\nFebruary 11, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>sjks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court Madan Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 11 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2149 of 2009. Date of Decision : February 11, 2009. Madan Kumar. &#8230;. Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat, &#8230;Respondents. and another. CORAM: HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: [&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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Madan Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 11 February, 2009 - 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\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madan Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-11T22:23:16+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madan Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 11 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T22:23:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1057,\"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\\\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Madan Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T22:23:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madan Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 11 February, 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":"Madan Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 11 February, 2009 - 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\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madan Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-11T22:23:16+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madan Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 11 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T22:23:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009"},"wordCount":1057,"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\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009","name":"Madan Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T22:23:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-kumar-vs-presiding-officer-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madan Kumar vs Presiding Officer on 11 February, 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\/56882","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=56882"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56882\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}