{"id":64096,"date":"2005-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005"},"modified":"2016-04-27T22:52:23","modified_gmt":"2016-04-27T17:22:23","slug":"b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005","title":{"rendered":"B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam vs M\/S Bharat Heavy Electricals … on 18 January, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam vs M\/S Bharat Heavy Electricals … on 18 January, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 18\/01\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ            \nAND  \nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN               \n\nW.A.NO.1595 OF 1998    \n\n\nB.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam   \nRegn.No.494, Trichy Bharat \nHeavy Electricals Limited,\nTrichy-14 rep by its\nGeneral Secretary,\nM.Krishnamoorthy        .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nM\/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,\nHigh Pressure Boiler Plant,\nTrichy-4 rep. by its\nExecutive Director.     .. Respondent\n\n        This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 7.9.1998  made\nin W.P.No.14527 of 1989. \n\n!For Appellant:  Mr.S.Kannaian\n                for Mr.G.Ethirajulu\n\n^For Respondent:  Mr.B.T.Seshadri \n\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
V.KANAGARAJ, J.\n<\/p>\n
        The  writ  appeal  has been filed praying to set aside the order dated
\n7.9.1998 made in W.P.No.14527 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The petitioner herein has filed a writ petition praying to issue a
\nwrit of Mandamus directing the respondent to frame  suitable  rules  uniformly
\nfor fixing eligibility period in the cadre of Security Sub-Inspector Grade III
\nand  Senior  Security  Guard  Grade  III  for further promotion to the post of
\nSecurity  Sub-Inspector  Grade  II  and  Senior  Security   Guard   Grade   II
\nrespectively  and  consequently  promote the employees in the orders of Senior
\nSecurity Guard Grade III to the post of Senior Security Guard  Grade  II  with
\neffect  from  24.6.1989  treating  them  as  equal cadre with that of Security
\nSub-Inspector Grade III.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The brief facts of the case of the petitioner Sangam are that  the
\nrecruitment promotion and various other service conditions of the employees of
\nthe respondent  are  governed by the Personnel Manual.  The promotion from one
\ngroup to another group or cadre is on the basis of merits as asserted  through
\na  selection  process  and  the  employees  are eligible for consideration for
\npromotion on completion of a specified number of years of  service;  that  the
\npromotion  will  be considered by Departmental Promotion Committee constituted
\nat the unit level for various grades and  the  criteria  for  considering  the
\npromotion  will  broadly  include factors such as qualifications, performance,
\ngeneral suitability on potential for  higher  responsibility.    Some  of  the
\npetitioner’s members were initially appointed as Security Guards in Group B II
\nin  category  II,  their  further promotion was either to the post of Security
\nSub-Inspector Grade III or Senior Security Guard Grade III  in  Group  B  III.
\nAccording  to  them,  after completion of six years of services in the post of
\nSecurity Guards, the respondent herein called for an  interview  numbering  21
\nemployees  to  assess  their suitability for promotion to the post of Security
\nSub-Inspector Grade III\/Senior Security Guard III by  its  office  Memo  dated
\n7.6.1984  in  Ref.No.BP.Bldg.4  No.24;that  surprisingly,  after assessing the
\nsuitability and merits, some of them who were  qualified  for  promotion  were
\npromoted  as  Security  Sub-Inspector  Grade  III  and  some of them as Senior
\nSecurity Guard Grade III in the next higher Group III on  22.6.1984.    It  is
\nstated  by  the petitioner that those employees who were promoted on 22.6.1984
\nto the post of Security Sub-Inspector Grade III were further promoted  to  the
\npost  of Security Sub-Inspector Grade II on 25.6.1989 on completion of 5 years
\nperiod in the post of security Sub-Inspector Grade III.  But those  candidates
\npromoted as Senior Security Guard Grade III on 22.6.1984 are still kept in the
\nsame  post  without  any promotion and it was made clear that they will not be
\ngiven any promotion in the near future.  None of  the  promotees  were  called
\nupon to  exercise  their option to the respective posts.  The promotion to the
\nsaid post was made according  to  the  whims  and  fancies  of  the  selection
\ncommittee.   While  making the promotion, it was made to believe that both the
\nposts are equal in rank and scale and they are eligible for further  promotion
\nuniformly and simultaneously and they will be treated as equals in all aspects
\nrelating to the service conditions.  Believing the same, they neither made any
\nprotest nor exercised their option, while accepting the promotion.  As per the
\npersonnel  manual, it is also made clear that both the posts are placed in one
\nGroup and the scale of pay and service conditions are the same.    The  avenue
\nfor  further promotion for them is, to the post of Senior Security Guard Grade
\nII and Security II and Security Sub-Inspector Grade  II  respectively.    That
\nbeing  so,  some  of the employees in the post of Sub-Inspector Grade III were
\npromoted to the post of Sub-Inspector  Grade  II.    The  said  promotion  was
\ngranted within  five  years.    Whereas  the employees promoted to the post of
\nSenior Security Guard Grade III are not given any promotion  to  the  post  of
\nSenior Security  Guard  Grade II.  Thus the respondent herein indiscriminately
\nadopting two different eligibility period for further  promotion  between  the
\ntwo cadre within the same group.  They state that all cadre in the Group B III
\nshall constitute  a  homogenous  class.    By  prescribing different qualified
\nperiod for one of them will mean dividing this homogenous class and the equals
\nare treated differently without any reasonable basis.  Due  to  the  arbitrary
\nfixing  of  eligibility  period  those  who  were  promoted  to  the  post  of
\nSub-Inspector Grade III along with senior  Security  Guard  Grade  III  earned
\ntheir  promotion  and  they  were  placed  in  the  higher  cadre, whereas the
\nemployees who were promoted as Senior Security Guard Grade III  are  continued
\nto remain  in  the  same  post.   So far the respondent has not made known the
\neligibility period to the Senior Security Guard grade III to the  next  higher
\ngrade.   Aggrieved  by the said anomaly created by the respondent, a number of
\nrepresentations were made by the aggrieved persons who are  stationed  in  the
\ncadre of  Senior  Security  Guard  Grade Iii for the past several years.  Even
\nthough the representation were received by the respondent, they have miserably
\nfailed to consider the legal  and  genuine  demands  of  the  members  of  the
\npetitioner Sangam.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  learned  Single  Judge has opined that there is no arbitrary
\nfixing of eligibility period and it is consistent with promotion policy  which
\nis  uniformly  and  consistently  followed in all the units of the respondent,
\nthat the respondent has followed the norms and  guidelines  of  the  Corporate
\nOffice  in respect of the promotion of the Senior Security Guard Grade-III and
\nSecurity Sub Inspector Grade-III to Grade-II is in the Normal  Channel  though
\nthe  scale of two categories are one and the same, that the eligibility period
\nfor both the categories are not uniform and consistently promotions  are  made
\nonly  on  this basis year to year and the petitioner cannot plead ignorance of
\nthe same and that therefore there is no discrimination of the  two  categories
\nand they are belonging to different channels of promotion viz.  Normal channel
\nand Side  channels  even though they are holding the same scale of pay.  Thus,
\nthe petitioners herein have miserably failed to make out  any  case  in  their
\nfavour.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before
\nthis  Court  on  the  grounds  that  the  promotion  policy  introduced by the
\nrespondent to the cadre of Senior Security Guard Grade III is arbitrary;  that
\nthe  learned  Single Judge has misconstrued the pleading of the respondent and
\nthereby erred in holding that the promotion  policy  was  made  known  to  the
\npetitioner  in  the year 1976 itself without any documentary evidence to prove
\nthe same; that the learned Single Judge  erred  in  holding  that  the  policy
\ndecision  and  the  eligibility  period  fixed by the respondent in respect of
\npromotion to the cadre of Senior security Guard Grade III to  Senior  security
\nGuard  Grade  II  cannot  be questioned by the employees of the establishment;
\nthat the policy decision of the employer can be  questioned  by  the  employee
\nwhen the same is inconsistent between two homogenous classes; that the reasons
\nassigned  by  the  respondent  for  introducing  side  channel  and fixing two
\ndifferent eligible periods for the promotion to the post  of  Senior  Security
\nGuard III and Security Sub Inspector Grade III from the post of Security Guard
\nin  the  counter to the affidavit is different from the letter dated 2.7.1980;
\nthat the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the employees should  have
\nrefused to accept the promotion as senior Security Guard Grade III and to wait
\nfor  their  chances  to get selected as Security Sub-Inspector Grade III; that
\nthe learned Single Judge erred in holding that the employees who accepted  the
\npromotion  in  the  cadre  of  Senior  Security Guard Grade III can seek their
\npromotion only in the said channel and they cannot compare themselves with the
\nemployees promoted as Security Sub-Inspector Grade III in  the  main  channel;
\nthat  the  learned  Single  Judge  erred  in holding that the side channel was
\nintroduced only to avoid stagnation in one particular scale of  pay  which  is
\ncontrary  to the reasons assigned by the respondent; that the participation of
\nthe Union in respect of policy  decision  cannot  be  an  information  to  the
\nemployees who actually suffered out of the said policy; that the learned Judge
\nerred  in  holding  that  even  though  the scale of pay to the post of Senior
\nsecurity Guard Grade III and security Sub Inspector Grade III  are  same,  but
\nthe  condition,  nature of duties are different; that the learned Single Judge
\nerred in holding that the employees in  the  cadre  of  Group  B-III  are  not
\nhomogenous class  since they were divided into two channels viz.  Main channel
\nand Side channel.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Learned Counsel for the appellant  would  rely  on  the  following
\nJudgment:\n<\/p>\n
(1) Union  of  India  and  others Vs.  S.L.Dutta and another (AIR 1991 SUPREME
\nCOURT 363)
\n(2) Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs.  Jagadishbhai M.Kamalia and Others  (2004)
\n2 Supreme Court Cases 65.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   So  far  as the first judgment cited above is concerned, the same
\nhas been cited before the learned single Judge, who  extracting  the  relevant
\nparagraph  18,  would  state  that the Honourable Supreme Court has refused to
\ninterfere with the  change  in  policy  relating  to  promotional  chances  of
\nofficers  in  Navigation Stream in Flying Branch of Air Force; that though the
\nsaid case was related to Air  Force,  the  ratio  laid  down  therein  by  the
\nHonourable  Apex  Court  is  applicable to the present case and therefore, the
\nlearned single Judge would feel that the above judgment is only in  favour  of
\nthe respondent, rendering support to the case of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  So far as the second judgment cited on the part of the petitioners
\nis  concerned,  particularly  from  paragraph  No.4  which is relied on by the
\npetitioners, this Court is able to see that in a land acquisition  proceeding,
\nthe  original owner of the property from whom the land has been acquired for a
\npublic purpose has come forward to pray reconveyance of the  property  in  his
\nfavour since the land acquired has not been utilised by the Government for the
\npurpose  for  which it was acquired and therefore the observations made by the
\nHonourable Apex Court therein become inapplicable to the facts of the case  in
\nhand.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   In  consideration  of  the  facts  pleaded,  having regard to the
\nmaterials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what
\ncould be assessed from the  above  Writ  Appeal  filed  on  the  part  of  the
\npetitioner  Sangam  as  against  the  order  of the learned single Judge dated
\n7.9.1998 made in the writ petition is that the petitioner  is  sticking  to  a
\nsingle  point that some of the members of the petitioner Sangam were initially
\nappointed as Security Guards in  Group  B-II  in  Category-II,  their  further
\npromotion was either to the post of Security Sub Inspector Grade-III or Senior
\nSecurity  Guard  Grade-III  in Group B-III; that on completion of six years of
\nservice in the post of Security Guards mentioned above,  after  assessing  the
\nsuitability  and  merits,  some  of them who were qualified for promotion were
\npromoted as Security Sub Inspectors Grade-III  and  some  of  them  as  Senior
\nSecurity  Guards  Grade-III  in the next higher Group III on 22.6.1984 and the
\nemployees who were promoted to the Post of Security  Sub  Inspector  Grade-III
\nwere  further  promoted  to  the  post  of  Security Sub Inspector Grade-II on
\n25.6.1989 on completion of five years period  in  the  post  of  Security  Sub
\nInspector Grade-III, but those candidates who were promoted as Senior Security
\nGuards  Grade-III  on  22.6.1984 have been still kept in the same post without
\nany promotion and there is no possibility of them being promoted in  the  near
\nfuture  and therefore the petitioners would call that the promotions were made
\nto the whims and fancies of the Selection Committee.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   According  to  the petitioners, it was made to believe that both
\nthe posts are equal in rank and scale of pay and they are eligible for further
\npromotion uniformly and simultaneously and they would be treated as equals  in
\nall  aspects  relating  to  the  service  conditions  and as per the Personnel
\nManual, it is made clear that both the Guards are placed in one group and  the
\nscale of  pay  and  the  service  conditions are one and the same.  While that
\nbeing so, some from the post of the Sub Inspector Grade-III were  promoted  to
\nthe  Sub  Inspector GradeII while the Senior Security Guards Grade-III are not
\ngiven any promotion to the post of Senior Security Guard Grade-II adopting two
\ndifferent eligibility standards for promotion between the  two  cadres  within
\nthe  same group in spite of both constituting homogenous class and the classes
\nare treated differently without any reasonable basis.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   This  argument  of  the petitioners has not been accepted by the
\nlearned single Judge who would  find  no  arbitrary  fixation  of  eligibility
\nperiod  and  the  same  was  consistant  with  the  promotion  policy which is
\nuniformly and consistently followed in all the units of the  respondent.    It
\nwould  further  be  pointed out that the respondent has followed the norms and
\nguidelines of the Corporate Office in respect of the promotions  of  both  the
\ncategories  and  though  the  scale  of  two  categories  are  the  same,  the
\neligibility standards and period for both the categories are not  uniform  and
\nthat  promotions  have  been made only on this basis and the petitioner cannot
\nplead ignorance of the same, and therefore, there is no discrimination of  the
\ntwo  categories  since  they  belong  to different channels of promotions viz.
\nNormal Channel and Side Channel, even though they are holding the  same  scale
\nof pay.    The  learned  single  Judge  would  feel  that the petitioners have
\nmiserably failed to make out any case in their favour.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  On a fair assessment of the case of the  petitioners,  it  is  an
\nadmitted  case  on  their  part that the petitioners were made to believe that
\nboth the posts were equal in rank and scale of pay and that they were eligible
\nfor further promotion uniformly and simultaneously and further they  would  be
\ntreated  as equals in all aspects relating to the service conditions believing
\nwhich they neither made any protest nor exercised their option while accepting
\nthe promotion and that they were further under the impression  that  both  the
\nposts were placed in one group and the scale of pay and the service conditions
\nare the  same.  These averments admittedly made on the part of the petitioners
\nin their pleadings themselves would go to show that under the impression  that
\nthings  would  be in accordance with their thinking, the petitioners have been
\nunder miserable misconception relating to the service conditions of the  posts
\nin  question  and  it is not the learned single Judge who has misconstrued the
\npleadings and erred in holding that the promotion policy was made known to the
\npetitioners  well  in  advance  but  it  is  only  the  petitioners  who  have
\nmisconstrued  the  promotional  chances of both the categories and the learned
\nsingle Judge in holding that the employees in the cadre of Group B-III are not
\nhomogenous classes since they were divided into  two  channels  –  the  Normal
\nChannel and the Side Channel – has only declared the service condition that is
\nprevalent and  it is not an invention by the learned single Judge.  Therefore,
\nthe learned single  Judge  has  held  that  the  employees  who  accepted  the
\npromotion  in  the  cadre  of  S  enior Security Guard GradeIII can seek their
\npromotion only in the said Channel and they cannot compare themselves with the
\nemployees promoted as Security Sub Inspector Grade-III in  the  main  channel;
\nthat  the  Side  Channel  was  introduced  only  to  avoid  stagnation  in one
\nparticular scale of pay; that the Union has  participated  in  the  policy  of
\ndecisions  and  therefore  the  petitioner  was  well  informed  of the actual
\nposition and policy.  On such sound reasons assigned, the learned single Judge
\nhas arrived at the conclusion to  dismiss  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the
\npetitioner Sangam thereby refusing to grant the relief sought for.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   On  a  careful perusal of the order passed by the learned single
\nJudge, this Court is able to see that the said order has been passed on  sound
\nreasons and based on the existing conditions of service which are distinct and
\ndifferent  for  both  the  categories  of  posts  and  the  petitioner  cannot
\namalgamate both into one and seek the same chances to  be  afforded  to  them.
\nThe  learned single Judge has fairly made out a distinction between the Normal
\nChannel and the Side Channel  which  have  been  inherited  not  from  out  of
\nimagination  but  from  out  of  the Manual bearing the service conditions and
\ntherefore this Court does not find any valid or tangible  reason  existing  to
\ncause  its  interference  into the well considered and merited order passed by
\nthe learned single Judge and hence the following judgment:
\nIn result,\n<\/p>\n
(i) the above Writ Appeal does not merit acceptance but becomes liable only to
\nbe dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The order dated 7.9.1998 made in W.P.No.14527  of  1989  by  the  learned
\nsingle Judge of this Court is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
        However,  in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
vjy\/Rao<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam vs M\/S Bharat Heavy Electricals … on 18 January, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18\/01\/2005 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN W.A.NO.1595 OF 1998 B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam Regn.No.494, Trichy Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy-14 rep by its General […]<\/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-64096","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam vs M\/S Bharat Heavy Electricals ... on 18 January, 2005 - 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\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam vs M\/S Bharat Heavy Electricals ... on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-27T17:22:23+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam vs M\\\/S Bharat Heavy Electricals … on 18 January, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-27T17:22:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2881,\"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\\\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005\",\"name\":\"B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam vs M\\\/S Bharat Heavy Electricals ... on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-27T17:22:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam vs M\\\/S Bharat Heavy Electricals … on 18 January, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam vs M\/S Bharat Heavy Electricals ... on 18 January, 2005 - 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\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam vs M\/S Bharat Heavy Electricals ... on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-27T17:22:23+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam vs M\/S Bharat Heavy Electricals … on 18 January, 2005","datePublished":"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-27T17:22:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005"},"wordCount":2881,"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\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005","name":"B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam vs M\/S Bharat Heavy Electricals ... on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-27T17:22:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-e-l-mazdoor-sangam-vs-ms-bharat-heavy-electricals-on-18-january-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.H.E.L. Mazdoor Sangam vs M\/S Bharat Heavy Electricals … on 18 January, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64096","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=64096"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64096\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64096"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64096"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64096"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}