{"id":61624,"date":"2006-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006"},"modified":"2017-03-22T18:43:06","modified_gmt":"2017-03-22T13:13:06","slug":"m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"M. Sudalai Andi vs Government Of India on 20 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M. Sudalai Andi vs Government Of India on 20 July, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 20\/07\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR        \n\nWrit Petition No.13235 of 2006\n W.P. No.13236 of 2006 \n W.P. No.13237 of 2006 \n W.P. No.13265 of 2006 \n W.P. No.13266 of 2006 \n W.P. No.13267 of 2006 \n W.P. No.13970 of 2006 \n W.P. No.13971 of 2006 \n W.P. No.13972 of 2006 \n W.P. No.13973 of 2006 \n W.P. No.13974 of 2006 \n\nM. Sudalai Andi        ..Petitioner in\n                          WP.No.13235 of 2006\nI. Rangaswamy           ..Petitioner in\n                          WP.No.13236 of 2006\nS. Samy                 ..Petitioner in\n                          WP.No.13235 of 2006\nV.K. Elumalai           ..Petitioner in\n                          WP.No.13265 of 2006\nD. Varadarajulu         ..Petitioner in\n                          WP.No.13266 of 2006\nS. Elumalai             ..Petitioner in\n                          WP.No.13267 of 2006\nP. Rajamanickam         ..Petitioner in\n                          WP.No.13970 of 2006\nS. Mohammed Sulaiman    ..Petitioner in\n                          WP.No.13971 of 2006\nD. Sivanandam           ..Petitioner in\n                          WP.No.13972 of 2006\nR. Vairam               ..Petitioner in\n                          WP.No.13973 of 2006\nP. Perumal              ..Petitioner in\n                          WP.No.13974 of 2006\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.Government of India\n  rep.by its Secretary,\n  Ministry of Labour,\n  Sharanshakthi Bhavan, \n  Rafi Marg,\n  New Delhi 1.\n\n2.Food Corporation\n  of India,\n  rep.by its Senior\n  Regional Manager,\n  5\/54, Greams Road, \n  Chennai  600 006.     ..Respondents in all petitions\n\n        The above  writ  petitions  have  been  filed  under  Article  226  of\nConstitution  of  India,  praying  this  Court  to  issue  a  writ of mandamus\ndirecting the first  respondent  to  refer  the  disputes  of  the  respective\npetitioners  to  the  Industrial  Tribunal,  Second  Floor,  City  Civil Court\nBuilding, High Court Compound, Chennai-600 104, by issuing notification as the\n\n\nCentral Government Industrial  Tribunal  for  deciding  the  disputes  with  a\ndirection to dispose of the Industrial Disputes so referred within a period of\nsix months.\n\n!For Petitioners    :   Mr.S.Vaidyanathan\n\nFor 1st Respondent :   Mr.S.Udayakumar  \n For 2nd Respondent :   Mr.Thambusamy   \n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
        The  common  prayer  in the above writ petitions is to issue a writ of
\nmandamus directing the first respondent to refer the disputes  raised  by  the
\nrespective  petitioners  to  the  Industrial  Tribunal (Central Government) by
\nissuing notification for deciding and dispose of the disputes within a  period
\nof six months.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      The  petitioners  claim that their age of retirement under the
\nsecond respondent is 60 years  and  the  second  respondent  superanuated  the
\npetitioners at  the  age of 58 years.  The said reduction of age by the second
\nrespondent from 60 years to 58 years was made without issuing any notice under
\nsection 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act to  alter  the  service  conditions.
\nAccording to  the  petitioner,  the  Conciliation  Officer viz.  the Assistant
\nLabour Commissioner (Central), submitted  failure  report  on  26.5.2005  with
\nregard  to the disputes raised by the petitioners and the first respondent has
\nnot referred the matter to the Labour Court and therefore these writ petitions
\nare filed.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      The second respondent filed counter affidavit and stated  that
\nthe  age  of  superannuation for departmental labourers of Food Corporation of
\nIndia remains 58 years even though the Labourers were allowed to work upto  60
\nyears  and the reduction of age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years is
\nnot an alteration of conditions of service and therefore  section  9A  of  the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act has no application to the facts of these cases.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      The  first  respondent  has  not  filed any counter affidavit.
\nHowever, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that
\nthe first respondent will consider the request of the  petitioners  either  to
\nrefer the matter or otherwise if a direction is issued.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      The  learned  counsel  appearing for the petitioners cited the
\nfollowing decisions in support of his contentions.\n<\/p>\n
(a)     1987 (1) LLJ 209
\n        (V.Veerarajan and others v.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others)<\/a><\/p>\n
(b)     1991 Supp (2) SCC 10
\n        (Dhanbad colliery Karamchari Sangh v.  Union of India)<\/p>\n
(c)     (1989) 3 SCC 271
\n        (Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v.  State of Bihar)<\/a><\/p>\n
(d)     W.P.No.397 of 2006 (Sivanandha Steel Employees’ Union, Chennai
\n        v.  Labour Officer (Conciliation), Chennai and Others)<\/a> dated
\n        28.4.2006<\/p>\n
(e)     (2005) 13 SCC 42
\n        (Air India Ltd.  and others v.  Vishal Capoor and others<\/a>)\n<\/p>\n
(f)     2006 (2) LLN 604
\n        (Philips India Ltd., v.  P.N.  Thorat, Assistant Commissioner of
\n        Labour and Conciliation Officer and others<\/a>)<\/p>\n
        6.      The learned counsel for the first  respondent  relied  on  the
\nfollowing decisions.\n<\/p>\n
(i)     1985 (1) LLJ 519
\n        (M.P.Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v.  State of M.P.  and<\/a> another)<\/p>\n
(ii)    1987 (1) LLJ 177
\n        (Shaw Wallace & Co.  Ltd.  v.  State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> represented by the
\n        Commissioner and Secretary, Labour Department and others)<\/p>\n
        7.      Let  us  first consider the decisions relied on by the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
        (a)     In the first  decision  reported  in  1987  (1)  LLJ  209  (V.
\nVeerarajan and  others v.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others) the Honourable
\nSupreme Court<\/a> held that if the dispute in question raises a  question  of  law
\nthe  appropriate  Government should not purport to reach a final conclusion on
\nthe  said  question  of  law  because  that  would  normally  lie  within  the
\njurisdiction of  the  Industrial Tribunal.  Similarly, on disputed question of
\nfact, the appropriate Government cannot purport to reach final conclusions for
\nthat again would be the province of the Industrial Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
        (b)     In 1991 Supp (2) SCC 10 (Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sangh  v.
\nUnion of India) in paragraph 3, the Supreme Court held as under,<\/p>\n
        “3.     After  hearing  learned  counsel  for  the  parties and having
\nregard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion  that
\nthis appeal  must  succeed.    The Central Government instead of referring the
\ndispute for adjudication to the appropriate Industrial Court under Section  10
\nof  the  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it itself decided the dispute which is
\nnot permissible under the law.  We, accordingly, allow the appeal,  set  aside
\nthe  order  of  the  High  Court  and of the Central Government and direct the
\nCentral Government to refer the dispute for adjudication  to  the  appropriate
\nIndustrial Court  under  Section  10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  We
\nfurther direct the Central Government  to  make  the  reference  within  three
\nmonths.”\n<\/p>\n
        (c)     In  (1989)  3  SCC  271 (Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v.
\nState of Bihar),<\/a> in paragraphs 13 to 15  the  Honourable  Supreme  Court  held
\nthus,<\/p>\n
        “13.    Attractive  though the contention is, we regret, we are unable
\nto accept the same.  It is now well settled that, while exercising power under
\nSection 10(1) of the Act, the function of the  appropriate  government  is  an
\nadministrative function and not a judicial or quasijudicial function, and that
\nin  performing  this  administrative function the government cannot delve into
\nthe merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of  the  lis,
\nwhich  would certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by Section 10
\nof the Act.  See Ram avtar Sharma v.  State of Haryana  ((1985)  3  SCC  189);
\nM.P.  Irrigation Karamchari  Sangh  v.    State  of  M.P.<\/a>  ((1985) 2 SCC 103);
\nShambhu Nath Goyal v.  Bank of Baroda, Jullundur<\/a> ((1978) 2 SCC 353).\n<\/p>\n
        14.     Applying the principle laid down by this Court  in  the  above
\ndecisions,  there  can  be  no  doubt that the government was not justified in
\ndeciding the dispute.  Where, as in the instant case, the dispute  is  whether
\nthe persons raising the dispute are workmen or not, the same cannot be decided
\nby  the  government  in  exercise of its administrative function under Section
\n10(1) of the Act.  As has been held in M.P.  Irrigation Karamchari Sangh  case
\n((1985)  2  SCC  103),  there  may  be  exceptional  cases  in which the State
\nGovernment may, on a proper examination of the demand, come  to  a  conclusion
\nthat  the  demands  are  either  perverse  or  frivolous  and  do  not merit a
\nreference.  Further,  the  government  should  be  very  slow  to  attempt  an
\nexamination  of  the demand with a view to declining reference and courts will
\nalways be vigilant whenever the government attempts to usurp the powers of the
\nTribunal for adjudication of valid disputes, and that to allow the  government
\nto do so would be to render Section 10 and Section 12(5) of the Act nugatory.\n<\/p>\n
        15.     We  are,  therefore,  of  the  view that the State Government,
\nwhich is the appropriate government, was not  justified  in  adjudicating  the
\ndispute,  namely, whether the convoy drivers are workmen or employees of TELCO <\/p>\n
or not and, accordingly, the i orders of the Deputy Labour Commissioner acting
\non behalf of the government and  that  of  the  government  itself  cannot  be
\nsustained.”\n<\/p>\n
        (d)     In  the  recent  decision of a Division Bench of this Court in
\nW.P.No.397 of 2006 (Sivanandha Steel Employees’  Union,  Chennai  v.    Labour
\nOfficer  (Conciliation),  Chennai  and  Others)<\/a>  dated  28.4.2006,  this Court
\ndirected to refer the dispute, if no  conciliation  is  arrived  at  within  a
\nperiod of four weeks.\n<\/p>\n
        (e)     In (2005)  13  SCC  42  (Air  India  Ltd and others v.  Vishal
\nCapoor and others<\/a>),  in  paragraph  49,  the  Honourable  Supreme  Court  gave
\npositive direction to refer the dispute, which is extracted hereunder,<\/p>\n
        “49.    We,  therefore,  set  aside the decision of the High Court and
\nallow the appeals.  It is directed that the appropriate Government shall refer
\nthe following questions for adjudication by the appropriate Tribunal:\n<\/p>\n
        1.      Whether the 1998 settlement or any portion thereof  is  liable
\nto be  set aside on the grounds of fraud, undue influence, etc.  as alleged by
\nthe Adhikari group ?\n<\/p>\n
        2.      Whether the requirement of the ALTP licence was necessary  for
\nco-pilots ?\n<\/p>\n
        3.      Whether  the Adhikari group was entitled to seniority over the
\nCPL-holders in the line seniority list ?\n<\/p>\n
        4.      What  is  the  legal  effect  of  the  Conciliation  Officer’s
\nrecommendation of  the  Adhikari  group’s  case  and  Air  India’s  acceptance
\nthereof?\n<\/p>\n
        5.      To what relief are the parties entitled ?”\n<\/p>\n
        (f)     A reference made to the Labour Court was challenged before the
\nBombay  High  Court by the employer on the ground that industrial dispute does
\nnot exist.  A Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the decision reported  in
\n2006 (2)  LLN  604  (Philips India Ltd., and another v.  P.N.Thorat, Assistant
\nCommissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer and others) held that  whether
\nthere  are  triable  issue  or  not  has  to be decided only by the Industrial
\ntribunal and not by the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
\nParagraph 12 of the said decision can be  usefully  referred  which  reads  as
\nunder,<\/p>\n
        “12.    From the above, what emerges is that there are serious triable
\nissues.   The  contention  of the union and the workmen is that fraud has been
\npractised upon them.  If the workmen are able to succeed in proving  that  the
\nagreement  was  entered into by playing fraud it will be open to them to avoid
\nthe settlement.  This issue cannot be answered by this Court at this stage  as
\nit would  require  evidence  to  be led.  Prima facie a Division Bench of this
\nCourt in the very proceedings has taken note that the  employees  involved  in
\nboth the  writ petitions would be workmen.  The Apex Court, however, left that
\nquestion to be decided.  At any rate the expression workmen considering S.2(s)
\nof the Industrial Disputes Act would include ex-workmen.  That  contention  of
\nthe  management that they are not workmen would require adjudication of facts.
\nBased on these findings and the issue of pensionary benefits under VRS it will
\nhave to be considered whether the dispute partakes of an  industrial  dispute.
\nThis,  again  would be premature for this Court to decide at this stage and it
\nwill be open to the petitioners to raise all it issues before  the  Industrial
\nTribunal to  which  the  reference  is made.  Similarly, the contention of the
\nemployer that they  have  complied  with  the  terms  of  the  settlement  and
\nconsequently there is no industrial dispute and that the employees cease to be
\nworkmen will have to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.”\n<\/p>\n
        8.      Now,  let  us  consider the decisions relied on by the learned
\ncounsel for the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        (i)     In 1985 (1) LLJ 519 (M.P.Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v.  State
\nof M.P.  and<\/a> another) the Honourable Supreme  Court  held  that  the  question
\nrelating  to  the conditions of service of employees was a matter primarily to
\nbe decided by  the  Tribunal  and  the  same  cannot  be  adjudicated  by  the
\nGovernment  and  the  Government  should  be slow to examine the merits of the
\ndemand to decline reference.  In paragraph 7 of the Judgment it is held thus,<\/p>\n
        “7.     There may be exceptional cases in which the  State  Government
\nmay,  on  a  proper  examination  of the demand, come to a conclusion that the
\ndemands are either perverse  or  frivolous  and  do  not  merit  a  reference.
\nGovernment  should be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand with a
\nview to decline reference and Courts will  always  be  vigilant  whenever  the
\nGovernment  attempts  to  usurp the powers of the Tribunal for adjudication of
\nvalid disputes.  To allow the Government to do so would be to render S.10  and
\nS.12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act nugatory.”\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)    In  the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in
\n1 987 (1) LLJ 177 (Shaw Wallace &  Co.    Ltd.    v.    State  of  Tamil  Nadu<\/a>
\nrepresented  by the Commissioner and Secretary, Labour Department and others),
\nin paragraph 32, the principles are summarised and  it  is  held  that  making
\nreference is  a rule and refusal to refer is an exception.  Paragraph 32 reads
\nas under,<\/p>\n
        “32.    On a final analysis, the following principles emerge:-\n<\/p>\n
        (1) The government would normally refer the dispute for adjudication;\n<\/p>\n
        (2)     The Government may refuse to make reference, if-\n<\/p>\n
(a)     the claim is very stale;\n\n(b)     the claim is opposed to the provisions of the Act;\n\n(c)     the claim is inconsistent with any agreement between the parties;\n\n(d)     the claim is patently frivolous;\n\n(e)     the impact of the claim on the general relations between the  employer\n<\/pre>\n
and the employees in the region is likely to be adverse;\n<\/p>\n
(f)     the person concerned is not a workman as defined by the Act;\n<\/p>\n
        (3)     The  Government  should  not  act on irrelevant and extraneous
\nconsiderations;\n<\/p>\n
        (4)     the Government should act honestly and bona fide;\n<\/p>\n
        (5)     The Government  should  not  embark  on  adjudication  of  the
\ndispute; and<\/p>\n
        (6)     The  Government should not refuse reference on the ground that
\ndomestic enquiry was fairly and  properly  held  and  punishment  awarded  was
\nappropriate.”\n<\/p>\n
        9.      As   rightly   submitted   by  the  learned  counsel  for  the
\npetitioner, the failure report has been  submitted  by  the  Assistant  Labour
\nCommissioner  (Central),  Chennai,  as early as on 26.5.2005 and till date the
\nfirst respondent has not taken any decision.  Therefore, there is  no  purpose
\nin  giving direction to the first respondent to decide the matter on merits at
\nthis stage.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     From the analysis of  the  above  referred  decisions  of  the
\nHonourable  Supreme  Court  as well as Division Bench of this Court and having
\nregard to the failure report submitted by  the  Regional  Labour  Commissioner
\n(Central),  Chennai-6,  I am of the view that the first respondent is bound to
\nrefer the disputes raised by  the  respective  petitioners,  as  the  disputes
\ncannot be  adjudicated  by  the  first  respondent  on  merits.    Whether the
\npetitioners are entitled to adjudication of disputes in their favour or not is
\nto be decided only by the Industrial Tribunal and not by the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        11.     In view of the above findings,  all  the  writ  petitions  are
\nallowed  with a direction to the first respondent to refer the disputes raised
\nby the  respective  petitioners  before  the  Industrial  Tribunal  (  Central
\nGovernment),  Second  Floor,  City Civil Court Buildings, High Court Compound,
\nChennai-600 104, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy
\nof this order and on  such  reference,  the  Tribunal  shall  dispose  of  the
\ndisputes at the earliest.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
vr<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.      The Secretary,
\n        Ministry of Labour,
\n        Government of India,
\n        Sharanshakthi Bhavan,
\n        Rafi Marg, New Delhi  1.\n<\/p>\n
2.      The Senior Regional Manager,
\n        Food Corporation of India,
\n        5\/54, Greams Road, Chennai  600 006.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M. Sudalai Andi vs Government Of India on 20 July, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 20\/07\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Writ Petition No.13235 of 2006 W.P. No.13236 of 2006 W.P. No.13237 of 2006 W.P. No.13265 of 2006 W.P. No.13266 of 2006 W.P. No.13267 of 2006 […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM. Sudalai Andi vs Government Of India on 20 July, 2006 - 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\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Sudalai Andi vs Government Of India on 20 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-22T13:13:06+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Sudalai Andi vs Government Of India on 20 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-22T13:13:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2199,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006\",\"name\":\"M. Sudalai Andi vs Government Of India on 20 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-22T13:13:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Sudalai Andi vs Government Of India on 20 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M. Sudalai Andi vs Government Of India on 20 July, 2006 - 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\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Sudalai Andi vs Government Of India on 20 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-22T13:13:06+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Sudalai Andi vs Government Of India on 20 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-22T13:13:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006"},"wordCount":2199,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006","name":"M. Sudalai Andi vs Government Of India on 20 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-22T13:13:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudalai-andi-vs-government-of-india-on-20-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Sudalai Andi vs Government Of India on 20 July, 2006"}]},{"@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\/61624","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=61624"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61624\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}