{"id":60038,"date":"2004-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004"},"modified":"2018-12-11T16:56:20","modified_gmt":"2018-12-11T11:26:20","slug":"management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"Management Of Krishnakali Tea … vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor … on 10 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Management Of Krishnakali Tea … vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor … on 10 September, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha, A.K. Mathur<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2194 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nManagement of Krishnakali Tea Estate\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAkhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr.\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/09\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nN. Santosh Hegde,S.B. Sinha & A.K. Mathur \n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Santosh Hegde, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal by leave of this Court is preferred against
\njudgment and order dated 8th of February 2000 made by the
\nGauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 519 of 1997 confirming
\nan order of the learned Single Judge of the same court in Civil
\nRule No.1485 of 1992 dated 19th July 1997. The original writ
\npetition was filed  by the first respondent herein  against an
\naward made by the Labour Court dated 21st of August 1991
\nwhich award upheld the decision of the appellant-management
\nto dismiss the concerned workmen on the ground of proved
\nmisconduct.\n<\/p>\n
\tFacts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\tConcerned workmen who are represented by the first
\nrespondent herein were in the employment of the appellant-
\nmanagement which was managing a Tea Estate.  It is the case
\nof the management that in pursuance to a demand for bonus of
\n20% made by the workmen which was not acceded  to by the
\nmanagement, certain workers came in a mob on the night of
\n12th-13th of October 1980 to the bungalow of Manager of the
\nTea Estate, armed with lethal weapons such as lathis, bows and
\narrows and axes and they gheraoed the Manager and others and
\nby threat demanded bonus at the rate of  20%  as against 8.33%
\noffered by the management.  The gherao according to the
\nmanagement continued till 3.00 AM on 13.10.1980.  It is also
\nalleged that on being informed, the police, Bilasipara arrived  at
\nthe Estate but the mob consisting the workmen  became violent
\nand damaged the bungalow and other property of the Estate.  It
\nis also alleged that during the wrongful confinement  of the
\nManager, he was compelled to sign a  document, agreeing to
\npay 20% bonus.  It is based on the above allegations, a
\ndomestic enquiry was instituted against the concerned workmen
\nand after the enquiry,  on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the
\nworkmen concerned were dismissed from service.  Pursuant to
\nthe said decision, an application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act  (for short, `the Act’) seeking approval
\nof the Labour Court of the action of the management in
\ndismissing the concerned workmen was filed.  The Labour
\nCourt at Gauhati approved the action of the management in
\ndismissing the concerned workmen on 30th July 1983.
\nNearly 7 years after the order of dismissal i.e. on
\n4.3.1987 a reference under Section 10 of the Act was made by
\nthe concerned Government referring a dispute to adjudication to
\nthe Industrial Tribunal, Assam (Labour Court).  The said
\ndispute pertained to the justification of the order  of the
\nmanagement in dismissing the concerned workmen as also to
\nthe question of entitlement of the workmen  for re-instatement
\nwith full back wages in the event of the Labour Court coming
\nto the conclusion that the dismissal was not justified.
\n\tOn receipt of the Govt. notification the Labour Court
\nissued notices to the parties calling upon them to file written
\nstatement and documents on which they intended to rely.
\nAccordingly, the parties filed their written statement and
\ndocuments.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe case of the management before the Labour Court
\nalso, as stated above, is that on the night of 12th and 13th
\nOctober 1980 the workmen concerned along with others came
\nto the Estate, armed with deadly weapons and confined the
\nManager and others from 8.30 PM  to 3.00 AM  next morning
\nand it is only after the manager  gave it in writing  under threat
\nas assurance that 20% bonus would be paid, the gherao was
\nlifted.  Management  also stated that these workman caused
\ndamage to the property of the estate.\n<\/p>\n
\tWorkmen in their written statement contended that on the
\nnight of 12.10.1980 the Manager of the Estate  by name Shri
\nD.K. Ghosh  and one Shri Ratan Babu met some of the  workers
\nincluding one Benja  Lohar being armed with guns. It is stated
\nthat the Manager on seeing the workmen got furious and  hit
\nBenja with the butt of his gun on the left side  of his head  and
\nRatan Babu hit the other workmen  by name  Suko on her right
\nhand,  Benja  fell unconscious  and on hearing the scream of
\nSuko other workmen came  to the aid of the injured workmen
\nand they took them to the garden  seeking first aid to the said
\ninjured persons.  It is further contended that police personnel
\nguarding the Manager’s bungalow  allowed the workmen to
\nenter  because of the injuries suffered by Benja and all the
\nworkmen only wanted  treatment of the said Benja and the other
\ninjured  co-worker. They contended that they were not armed
\nwith any lethal weapons  nor did they create any untoward
\nincident.  It is due to ulterior motive with a view to get rid of
\nthe workmen who were not to the liking of the manager, the
\nmanagement had initiated  the domestic enquiry.  They also
\ncontended  that no opportunity was given to the workmen  to
\nproduce evidence  or to defend themselves in the domestic
\nenquiry.  They denied that they ever damaged the property of
\nthe Estate or illegally confined the Manager and others inside
\nthe Manager’s bungalow. They contend that the enquiries by
\nthe domestic tribunal was vindictive, capricious.
\n\tThe Labour Court  while considering the preliminary
\nissue “whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper” held
\nthat the same was not fair and proper, therefore parties were
\ngiven opportunities   to produce evidence on merits.  Labour
\nCourt also noted the fact that the charge framed against the
\nworkmen   in the enquiry was  that:-\n<\/p>\n
“on 12th and 13.10.1980  you entered
\ninside the Manager’s bungalow from 8.30
\nPM to 3.00 AM with lethal weapons in
\nhand along with others  in the riotous
\nmanner and damaged  company’s
\nproperty and illegally confined the
\nManager and others inside the Manager’s
\nbungalow”.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is relevant to mention  at this stage  that in regard to the
\nincident which was the subject-matter  of the domestic enquiry,
\nthe police  had initiated  criminal proceedings and in the said
\nproceedings the accused persons were acquitted  for lack of
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
The Labour Court after considering the material
\nproduced  by the parties came to the conclusion that the
\nallegations of wrongful confinement and extortion of
\ndocuments  stood proved and the defence of the workmen that
\nthe Manager had assaulted the workers Benja and Suko
\nconsequent to which a group of workmen entered the Estate to
\nprovide treatment to  them was not accepted.  The Labour Court
\nalso noticed  the fact that  out of the 29 dismissed workmen,
\nsome had settled the dispute with the management and have
\naccepted  the compensation offered by the management  and
\nhad left  the services of the management while others who did
\nnot  accept  the settlement were alone proceeded against. The
\nCourt also  took note of the fact that the criminal case filed as
\nagainst some of the workmen  in the criminal court, ended  in
\nacquittal but held that the order of the criminal court had no
\nbearing on the case before it, hence based on the material
\nproduced it upheld the dismissal of the workmen  and rejected
\nthe prayer  of the workmen  for reinstatement with full back
\nwages.\n<\/p>\n
\tBeing aggrieved by the said award of the Labour court,
\nthe workmen-Union, the first respondent herein preferred  a
\nwrit petition before a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High
\nCourt  who after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that
\nthe finding of the Labour Court  that there was extortion of
\ndocuments by the workmen concerned was contrary to the
\nchargesheet  which did not contain such an allegation.  It came
\nto the conclusion that allegation of extortion was an
\nafterthought.  It also accepted  the defence of the workmen  that
\nthey entered the Estate only to obtain treatment of the injured
\nworkmen who was assaulted by the  Manager of the Estate.  It
\nalso held that the Labour Court did not apply its mind  to the
\nvital facts and circumstances  of the case as alleged by the
\nlearned counsel for the workmen  who appeared  in the said writ
\npetition.  On that basis the learned Single Judge came to the
\nconclusion  that the Labour court did not appreciate the material
\non record properly and passed the order  justifying  the
\ndismissal which is disproportionate  to the offence alleged.  It
\nalso held  that the workmen who were tried before the criminal
\ncourt were honorably acquitted by the criminal court  and the
\ndepartmental enquiry  held by the management was faulty.  On
\nthe said basis it set aside the award and directed the
\nmanagement to (i) reinstate the surviving workmen who have
\nnot attained   the age of superannuation with compensation of
\nRs.15,000\/- to each of them in lieu of back wages; (ii) to pay
\ncompensation of Rs.30,000\/-  to each of the workers who have
\nsuperannuated during the pendency  of the proceedings upto
\nthat Court and (iii) to fix lump sum compensation in
\nconsultation with the  petitioner -Union which shall be  paid to
\nthe actual heir (wife) of the workmen who expired without
\ngetting  any benefit.   It directed the management to pay the said
\ncompensation within six weeks from the receipt of its
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tAn appeal filed against the said judgment  and order of
\nthe learned Single Judge  before the Division Bench of the same
\nCourt came to be dismissed.  The Appeal Bench held  that the
\nLabour Court could not have gone beyond the charge originally
\nframed by the management in the domestic enquiry.  Therefore,
\nits finding in regard to the charge of extortion was
\nunsustainable  in law.  It also came to the conclusion  that there
\nwas  a duty on the part of the Labour  Court  to have taken into
\nconsideration the findings and the facts recorded in the criminal
\ncourt which not having  been done, the award could not be
\nsustained.  It upheld  the learned Single Judge’s conclusion  that
\nthe punishment of the dismissal of the workmen was
\ndisproportionate  to the offence actually alleged against the
\nworkmen.  It is on that basis the appeal came to be dismissed.
\n\tAs stated above, it is against the said judgment of the
\nHigh Court the appellant management is before us in this
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri K. R. Choudhary, learned senior counsel  addressing
\narguments on behalf of the appellant  contended that the Labour
\nCourt  having permitted the parties to adduce evidence in
\njustification or otherwise of the finding of the domestic tribunal
\nand having recorded evidence in this regard justly came to the
\nconclusion that the management has established its case of
\nmisconduct  against the workmen.  He also contended that the
\nfinding in regard to the extortion of the documents was not
\nactually a new charge but was in fact a part of the charge which
\nreferred to the wrongful confinement  of the Manager and there
\nbeing sufficient  material before the Labour Court, both in
\nregard to the long and wrongful confinement of the Manager
\nand other officials of the Estate as also in regard to the forceful
\nextortion of a document agreeing to pay 20% bonus, the Labour
\nCourt was justified  in coming to the conclusion that the
\nworkmen were also guilty of the said charge of extortion.  He
\nalso contended, assuming for the argument sake that the Labour
\nCourt  could not have gone into the question of extortion of the
\ndocument, the original charge  as framed by the domestic
\nenquiry having clearly stated  about the wrongful confinement
\nof the Manager and others and the damage caused to the
\nproperty of the Estate   by a riotous mob of workmen, carrying
\ndeadly weapons, itself was sufficient to justify the punishment
\nof dismissal.  He submitted that the finding and evidence
\nrecorded by the criminal court not binding on the labour court,
\nthere was no obligation on the part of the labour court to have
\nconsidered the evidence led in the said trial.  At any rate, he
\nsubmitted that the Labour Court had taken cognizance of the
\nfact that there was a criminal case which came to be ended in an
\nacquittal.  He pointed out  that the observations of the learned
\nSingle Judge that the acquittal of the   workmen by the criminal
\ncourt was “honorable acquittal”, is wholly erroneous. He also
\nsubmitted that on facts and circumstances of the case it is
\nestablished that the workmen have indulged  in a serious
\nunlawful act which justified the punishment of dismissal.  In
\nsupport of his arguments, learned counsel has relied on a
\njudgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan versus B.K.
\nMeena and others [1996 (6) S.C.C. 417].\n<\/p>\n
\tShri D.K. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for
\nthe respondent-Union  contended that the finding of the Labour
\nCourt  having gone beyond the  charge framed by the
\nmanagement against the workmen in regard to the allegations of
\nextortion, the same was justly reversed by the High Court. He
\nplaced reliance in support of this contention on the judgment of
\nthis Court in  the case of The Workmen of M\/s. Firestone
\nTyre & Rubber  Co. of India  (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. etc.  versus
\nThe Management & Ors.  1973 (1) LLJ  278.  He next
\ncontended  that the Labour Court ought not to have brushed
\naside the finding of the criminal court  and it was duty bound to
\nhave considered the same while appreciating the evidence
\nadduced in the proceedings before it.  In support of this
\ncontention, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this
\nCourt in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony versus Bharat
\nGold Mines Ltd. and another AIR 1999 SC 1416.  He then
\ncontended  that assuming for argument sake that the workmen
\ndid indulge in some sort of gherao, since there is no evidence as
\nto specific overt act  assigned  to the dismissed workmen, the
\npunishment of dismissal was totally disproportionate to the
\nmisconduct alleged.   He relied on a judgment of this court in
\nthe case of M\/s. Burn & Co.  Limited versus Their workmen
\nand others AIR 1959 SC 529.\n<\/p>\n
\tBearing in mind the arguments addressed before us and
\nfindings of the High Court, we will now consider  the various
\narguments addressed before us in this appeal.  In that process
\nwe will first take up the contention  of the respondent that the
\nfinding of the Labour Court is vitiated  by the fact that it took
\ninto consideration a misconduct which was not part of the
\ncharge memo issued to the workmen, and the Labour Court
\nwent beyond the charges framed therefore the conclusion of the
\nLabour court  as to justification of the punishment  is vitiated
\nby irrelevant consideration, and the High Court was justified in
\ninterfering with the said finding.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is true in the charge memo issued to the concerned
\nworkmen extortion was not shown as one of the acts of
\nmisconduct.  The original charge memo contained the following
\ncharge:\n<\/p>\n
”  (1) On 12.10.80\/13.10.80 you
\nentered inside the Manager’s
\nbungalow from 8.30 PM to 3.00 AM
\nwith lethal weapons in hand along with
\nothers in a riotous manner and
\ndamaged company’s property and
\nillegally confined Manager and others
\ninside the Manager’s bungalow.  You
\nalso used abusive language.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThis if proved is an offence
\nunder standing orders 10(a)(7),
\n10(a)(8) and 10(a) 11 in force on
\nthis Estate”\n<\/p>\n
The Labour Court in its award on a preliminary point
\nheld that the enquiry conducted  by the management was not a
\nproper enquiry hence based on the requests made in the
\nstatement filed before it, permitted the management to adduce
\nevidence in support of its charge in the proceedings before it
\nand also permitted the workmen to adduce evidence in defence.
\nIn the course of the evidence adduced by the parties a specific
\nallegation that the workmen demanded a promise in writing
\nfrom the Manager of the Estate to give 20% bonus was in fact
\nmade and that on police officer having informed that it will not
\nbe possible to control the situation unless such a promise was
\ngiven by the Manager in writing a document to the effect was
\ngiven by the Manager under threat and  that only after receipt of
\nthe said document workers dispersed, at about 3.00 AM on 13th
\nOctober 1980, was made.  The Labour Court having considered
\nthe evidence led  by the Management in this regard as also the
\ncounter evidence led by the workmen  came to the conclusion
\nthat such an extortion of letter under threat was actually
\nobtained.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workmen,
\nrelied upon the judgment of this Court in Laxmi Devi Sugar
\nMills Ltd. versus Nand Kishore Singh [1956 Vol.II LLJ 439]
\nwherein it was held:\n<\/p>\n
“But in view of the fact that the concerned
\nworkman was chargesheeted only for
\ninstigating his fellow-workmen to demand
\nfor removal of the general manager and not
\nfor any other act of insubordination, the
\nmanagement could not be permitted  to
\ndismiss him..The prayer of the
\nmanagement for permission to dismiss such
\nworkmen could not be allowed to be
\njustified on any grounds or charges other
\nthan those mentioned in the chargesheet.\n<\/p>\n
The concerned workman not having been
\ncharged  with the act of insubordination
\nwhich could have really  justified the
\nmanagement in dismissing him, the
\nemployer could not take advantage of the
\nsame even though those acts could be
\nbrought home to him in proper
\nproceedings.”\n<\/p>\n
          Based on the above decision of this Court in the said
\ncase, an argument is addressed on behalf of the respondent-
\nworkmen that the Labour Court could not have justified the
\ndismissal  of the workmen on the basis of an allegation of
\nextortion which was not a part of the charges framed.
\n\tIt is to be noted  herein that in the instant case in the
\nstatements filed by the management before the Labour Court,
\nact of extortion was mentioned as one of the facts leading to
\nmisconduct which was supported by the evidence led by the
\nmanagement before the Labour Court.  Though no specific
\ncharge\/issue was framed in this regard against the concerned
\nworkmen but the workmen in their statement  had denied the
\nsame. Therefore, the  parties were well aware  that the extortion
\nof a letter promising 20% bonus from the Manager was one of
\nthe facts in the chain of events involved in the incident of 12th
\nand 13th of October 1980.  The Labour Court found, among
\nother facts, this fact of extortion as also having been proved.
\nThe question then is: can a finding of justification of a
\npunishment awarded by the management based on an additional
\nfact though proved by evidence but not mentioned in the charge
\ncan be maintained. It is well-settled that Rules of Procedure
\nfound in the Code of Criminal Procedure are not strictly
\napplicable to the proceedings before the Labour Court but the
\nLabour Court can always rely on legal principles found in the
\nprovisions of the Code to modulate its procedure. Section 215
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure reads thus :
\n“215. Effect of errors.No error in stating
\neither the offence or the particulars required
\nto be stated in the charge, and no omission
\nto state the offence or those particulars, shall
\nbe regarded at any stage of the case as
\nmaterial, unless the accused was in fact
\nmisled by such error or omission, and it has
\noccasioned a failure of justice.”\n<\/p>\n
From the above, it is seen that even in a criminal trial if
\nthere are omissions to state a particular offence in the charge,
\nthat by itself does not occasion a failure of justice unless the
\naccused satisfies the court that by such omission he was in fact
\nmisled and the same has occasioned a failure of justice. In the
\ninstant case, as noted above, in the statements filed by the
\nManagement before the Labour Court, this act of extortion is
\nspecifically alleged and in the reply statement of  the workmen,
\nthe same is specifically denied and parties have led evidence in
\nregard to their respective cases on the question of extortion,
\ntherefore, it cannot be said that the workmen were misled by the
\nomission to mention the charge of extortion. Having joined
\nissue on this question of fact, they cannot also plead that they
\nhave been in any manner prejudiced by the said omission or
\nmisled by such omission nor can they contend that the said
\nomission has occasioned a failure of justice.\n<\/p>\n
Be that as it may, since this Court in the case of Laxmi
\nDevi Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), has stated that the Management
\ncannot be permitted to justify the punishment on grounds of
\ncharges other than those mentioned in the chargesheet, we
\nwould leave this issue at that.\n<\/p>\n
But what is stated by us hereinabove would not in any
\nmanner, vitiate the ultimate justification of the dismissal order
\nas held by the Labour Court.  It is to be noticed that the charge
\nmemo issued to the workmen has in specific terms stated that
\nthe workmen concerned on 12th  13th October, 1980 entered
\nthe Manager’s bungalow, armed with deadly weapons, caused
\ndamage to the property of the estate and illegally confined the
\nManager and others between 8.30 p.m. on 12th October till 3
\na.m. on 13th October, 1980. This allegation as found in the
\ncharge memo has also been found to be proved by the Labour
\nCourt. Therefore, the question for our consideration is: whether
\nthis finding as alleged in the chargesheet by itself is sufficient
\nto justify the order of dismissal without the support of the
\nallegation of extortion. On this aspect of the case the decision
\nof this Court in Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) will not
\nassist the respondents’ case. In that case, the only charge
\nagainst the workman was that he instigated the other workmen
\nto demand the removal of the General Manager which charge
\nwas not proved in the enquiry, then the management tried to
\njustify the removal by adducing evidence on other allegations in
\nregard to which there was no charge, in those factual situation
\nthis Court held such justification based uncharged allegation
\nwas impermissible.\n<\/p>\n
In the case in hand, the facts are different, the charge
\ncontained the allegation of riotous behaviour, causing damage
\nto the property and wrongful confinement, these charges were
\nheld to be proved the additional fact of extortion though
\nfactually  proved was outside the charge, hence, we will have to
\nconsider whether  charges proved, other  than that of extortion
\nis sufficient to confirm the approval of dismissal of the
\nworkmen. From the facts noticed hereinabove, it is seen that on
\nthe night between  12th and 13th of October, 1980, the concerned
\nworkmen entered the Estate  armed with deadly weapon  caused
\ndamage to the property  of the Estate and wrongfully  confined
\nthe Manager and others between 8.30 PM on 12th  to 3.00 AM
\non 13th  of next day.  These  facts which are mentioned in the
\nCharge-Memo  and held proved  establishes  misconducts
\nalleged against  the concerned workmen in the Charge-Memo,
\nin this back ground even proceeding on the  basis  that the
\nallegation  of extortion has not been legally established   and
\nought not to be considered as a misconduct,  in our opinion,  the
\nother  misconducts of causing damage to the property  Gherao
\nand wrongfully confining  the Manager  and others for a long
\nperiod  are  by themselves sufficient to come to the conclusion
\nthat the concerned workmen have indulged  in misconduct
\npunishable  under the standing orders applicable to them.  The
\nallegation of extortion  though being a part of the  continuing
\nact of misconducts is severable from the other allegations,  on
\nthe basis  of the finding of the Labour Court the allegations
\nalleged the concerned workmen can be accepted without
\nreference  to its finding on the allegation of extortion.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe next contention addressed on behalf of the
\nrespondents is that the Labour Court ought not to have brushed
\naside the finding of the criminal court which according to the
\nlearned Single Judge ‘honorably’ acquitted the workmen-
\naccused of the offence before it.  We have been taken through
\nthe said judgment of the criminal court and we must record that
\nthere was such ‘honorable’ acquittal by the criminal court. The
\nacquittal by the criminal court was based on the fact that the
\nprosecution did not produce sufficient material to establish its
\ncharge  which is clear from the following observations found in
\nthe judgment of the criminal court:\n<\/p>\n
“Absolutely in the evidence on record of the
\nprosecution witnesses I have found nothing
\nagainst the accused persons.  The
\nprosecution totally fails to prove the charges
\nunder Sections 147, 353, 329 IPC”\n<\/p>\n
          Learned counsel for the respondents in regard to the
\nabove contention relied on a judgment of this Court in the case
\nof Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra). In our opinion, even that
\ncase would not support the respondents herein because in the
\nsaid case the evidence led in the criminal case, as well as in the
\ndomestic enquiry was one and the same and the criminal case
\nhaving acquitted the workmen on the very same evidence, this
\nCourt came to the conclusion that the finding to the contrary
\non the very same evidence by the domestic enquiry would be
\nunjust, unfair and rather oppressive. It is to be noted in that
\ncase the finding by the tribunal was arrived in an ex parte
\ndepartmental proceeding. In the case in hand, we have noticed
\nbefore the Labour Court the evidence led by the management
\nwas different from that led by the prosecution in the criminal
\ncase and the materials before the criminal court and the Labour
\nCourt were entirely different. Therefore, it was open to the
\nLabour Court to have come to an independent conclusion de
\nhors the finding of the criminal court. But at this stage it
\nshould be noted that it is not as if the Labour Court in the
\ninstant case was totally oblivious of the proceedings before the
\ncriminal court. The Labour Court has in fact perused the order
\nof the Judicial Magistrate and the exhibits produced therein
\nand came to an independent conclusion that the order of the
\ncriminal case has no bearing on the proceedings before it
\nwhich finding of the Labour Court, in our opinion, is justified.
\nIt may be some use to us to refer at this stage to a judgment of
\nthis Court in the case of State of Rajasthan (supra) wherein it
\nis  held thus :\n<\/p>\n
“There is yet another reason.  The approach
\nand the objective in the criminal proceedings
\nand the disciplinary proceedings is
\naltogether distinct and different.  In the
\ndisciplinary proceedings, the question is
\nwhether the  respondent is guilty of such
\nconduct as would merit his removal from
\nservice or a lesser punishment, as the case
\nmay be, whereas in the criminal proceedings
\nthe question is whether  the offences
\nregistered against him under the Prevention
\nof Corruption Act (and the Indian Penal
\nCode, if any) are established and, if
\nestablished, what sentence should be
\nimposed upon him.  The standard of proof,
\nthe mode of enquiry and the rules governing
\nthe enquiry and trial in both the cases are
\nentirely distinct and different.”\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom the above, it is seen that the approach and the
\nobjectives of the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary
\nproceedings are altogether distinct and different. The
\nobservations therein indicate that the Labour Court is not bound
\nby the findings of the criminal court.\n<\/p>\n
\tEven the reliance placed in the case of M\/s. Burn & Co.
\n(supra), in our opinion, does not assist the workmen in this
\nappeal. That was a case where this Court came to the conclusion
\nthat there was no dependable evidence against the individual
\nworkman who has incited the workers to participate in the strike.
\nIn such circumstances, the Court came to the conclusion that in
\nthe absence of any evidence individually implicating the
\nworkmen concerned an omnibus allegation against all workmen
\ncannot be used to punish only some workmen. Such is not the
\nsituation in the facts of this case wherein we have noticed that
\nthe tribunal has come to the conclusion that the concerned
\nworkmen had participated in the gherao armed with deadly
\nweapons  and caused damage  to the property of the Estate  and
\nwrongfully confined the Manager and others for nearly 8 hrs.
\nTherefore, it found all those workmen who took part in the said
\nincident guilty of the misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
This leaves us to consider whether the punishment of
\ndismissal awarded to the concerned workmen de hors the
\nallegation of extortion is disproportionate to the misconduct
\nproved against them.  From the evidence proved, we find the
\nconcerned workmen entered the estate armed with deadly
\nweapons with a view to gherao the Manager and others in that
\nprocess they caused damage to the property of the estate and
\nwrongfully confined the Manager and others from 8.30 p.m. on
\n12th of October to 3 a.m. on the next day. These charges, in our
\nopinion, are grave enough to attract the punishment of dismissal
\neven without the aid of the allegation of extortion. The fact that
\nthe Management entered into settlement with some of the
\nworkmen who were also found guilty of the charge would not, in
\nany manner, reduce the gravity of the misconduct in regard to
\nthe workmen concerned in this appeal because these workmen
\ndid not agree with the settlement which others are agreed instead
\nchose to question the punishment.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds. The
\norders of the High Court are set aside that of the lower court is
\nrestored. The appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Management Of Krishnakali Tea … vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor … on 10 September, 2004 Author: S Hegde Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha, A.K. Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2194 of 2001 PETITIONER: Management of Krishnakali Tea Estate RESPONDENT: Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/09\/2004 […]<\/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-60038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nManagement Of Krishnakali Tea ... vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor ... on 10 September, 2004 - 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\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Management Of Krishnakali Tea ... vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor ... on 10 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-11T11:26:20+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Management Of Krishnakali Tea … vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor … on 10 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-11T11:26:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":4871,\"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\\\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004\",\"name\":\"Management Of Krishnakali Tea ... vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor ... on 10 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-11T11:26:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Management Of Krishnakali Tea … vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor … on 10 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Management Of Krishnakali Tea ... vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor ... on 10 September, 2004 - 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\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Management Of Krishnakali Tea ... vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor ... on 10 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-11T11:26:20+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Management Of Krishnakali Tea … vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor … on 10 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-11T11:26:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004"},"wordCount":4871,"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\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004","name":"Management Of Krishnakali Tea ... vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor ... on 10 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-11T11:26:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-of-krishnakali-tea-vs-akhil-bharatiya-chah-mazdoor-on-10-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Management Of Krishnakali Tea … vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor … on 10 September, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60038","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=60038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60038\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}