{"id":65218,"date":"2007-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007"},"modified":"2017-11-07T17:14:36","modified_gmt":"2017-11-07T11:44:36","slug":"the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"The District President vs The Zonal Manager on 2 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The District President vs The Zonal Manager on 2 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 15967 of 2007(A)\n\n\n1. THE DISTRICT PRESIDENT,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. P.M.BENJAMIN, S\/O.LATE MICHAEL.P.P.,\n3. T.V.JOSEPH, THARASSERY HOUSE,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE ZONAL MANAGER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :02\/11\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                    S.SIRI JAGAN, J\n                       -------------------\n                   W.P.(C). 15967\/2007\n                      --------------------\n        Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2007\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Union   in  I.D   No.9\/2005         before the   Central<\/p>\n
Government     Industrial     Tribunal-Cum-Labour       Court,<\/p>\n
Eranakulam, is the petitioner herein. The petitioner-Union<\/p>\n
challenges Ext.P16 award passed by the Tribunal-Cum-<\/p>\n
Labour Court in that I.D in this writ petition. The issue<\/p>\n
referred for adjudication was “Whether the action of the<\/p>\n
management of Bank of India in not regularizing the<\/p>\n
services   of  personal     drivers       of  Executives viz.,<\/p>\n
Sri.P.M.Banjamin and Sri.T.V.Joseph and terminating their<\/p>\n
services are correct? If not to what relief the workers are<\/p>\n
entitled?”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    The contention of the Union was that the workers<\/p>\n
involved were workers of the management Bank whose<\/p>\n
services were illegally terminated.           They, therefore,<\/p>\n
sought reinstatement with back wages. The management<\/p>\n
took contention that the workmen were not employees of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15967\/2007
\n                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
the Bank at all and that there was no employer-employee<\/p>\n
relationship between the Bank and the workmen. They<\/p>\n
took the stand that the workmen personal drivers were<\/p>\n
employed by the Executives of the Bank and not drivers<\/p>\n
of the Bank.      The Bank neither appointed them nor<\/p>\n
terminated their service. The drivers were not provided<\/p>\n
by the Bank to the officers, but the officers themselves<\/p>\n
appointed them. Therefore, they disclaimed any liability<\/p>\n
in respect of     the workmen in question.        Industrial<\/p>\n
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, after appreciating the<\/p>\n
evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
workmen were in fact personal drivers of the Executives<\/p>\n
of the Bank and not drivers employed by the Bank. On<\/p>\n
that finding, the Tribunal held that the workers are not<\/p>\n
entitled to any relief in the industrial dispute. The Union<\/p>\n
is challenging that award.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    The counsel for the Union would argue that the<\/p>\n
Labour Court has not appreciated the evidence adduced<\/p>\n
by the workers properly and that the findings in the<\/p>\n
award are perverse.        He would point out that the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15967\/2007
\n                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
management        did  not   produce  material   evidence<\/p>\n
available with them in spite of specific requests made in<\/p>\n
that behalf and that in reply to a petition summoning<\/p>\n
document, a senior officer of the Bank filed a counter<\/p>\n
affidavit stating that, that document is not maintained by<\/p>\n
the Bank whereas the management witness while giving<\/p>\n
evidence, admitted that such a document was maintained<\/p>\n
by the Bank. The counsel, therefore, argued that the<\/p>\n
conduct of the management before the Tribunal coupled<\/p>\n
with the evidence on record was sufficient to decide the<\/p>\n
issue in favour of the workmen.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   The learned counsel for the management would<\/p>\n
point out that the very fact that the workmen were not<\/p>\n
represented by any Union       of employee of the Bank,<\/p>\n
would go a long way in proving that the workmen were<\/p>\n
not employed by the Bank at all.        He would further<\/p>\n
submit that the evidence adduced by the workmen<\/p>\n
themselves were more than sufficient to hold that they<\/p>\n
were never employed by the Bank as drivers of the Bank<\/p>\n
but only as personal drivers of the Executives. He would<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15967\/2007
\n                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
further submit that the minor discrepancies in the<\/p>\n
evidence is not sufficient to offset the overwhelming<\/p>\n
evidence against the workmen that too produced by the<\/p>\n
workmen themselves.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n
6.   At the outset, I     must remind     myself of     my<\/p>\n
jurisdiction in the matter of appreciating correctness of<\/p>\n
award of Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court.        It is<\/p>\n
settled law that this Court acting under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India is not sitting in appeal over the<\/p>\n
award. This Court can interfere with such an award only<\/p>\n
if the award is based on no evidence or where the<\/p>\n
conclusions arrived at in the award are perverse.<\/p>\n
7.   In this case, the workmen involved              were<\/p>\n
represented by the District President of Kerala private<\/p>\n
Transport Workers Congress which is not a union<\/p>\n
representing workmen of the management Bank. While<\/p>\n
giving evidence, one of the workmen T.V.Joseph admitted<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15967\/2007
\n                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
in cross-examination that he was taken as personal<\/p>\n
driver of the Manager of NRI Branch, Eranakulam, and<\/p>\n
that the outgoing Manager used to introduce him to the<\/p>\n
incoming Managers. He also admitted that he was the<\/p>\n
personal driver of Sri. E.P.Gopakumar at the time of<\/p>\n
termination of his service.   He categorically admitted<\/p>\n
that when he applied for membership of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Private Transport Workers Congress, his occupation was<\/p>\n
mentioned as personal driver in Bank of India.<\/p>\n
Admittedly no appointment order or termination order<\/p>\n
was issued to the workmen.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.   The management Bank is a nationalised Bank and<\/p>\n
therefore, they have to follow the procedure prescribed<\/p>\n
for public appointment while selecting employees.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, the workmen involved in the industrial<\/p>\n
dispute    did    not undergo  any   selection  process<\/p>\n
whatsoever. Both the workmen stated during evidence<\/p>\n
that they came to know about the vacancy from others<\/p>\n
and approached the respective officers.     When they<\/p>\n
approached the Manager of the NRI Branch and<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15967\/2007
\n                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
Regional Manager respectively offering their services as<\/p>\n
drivers, they were interviewed by the Executives,<\/p>\n
perused their licences, enquired of their experience as<\/p>\n
drivers. It was thereafter, the respective officer asked<\/p>\n
them to join duty. It is also admitted that the Bank was<\/p>\n
reimbursing the officers, the wages paid to them for their<\/p>\n
personal drivers. There was nothing on record to show<\/p>\n
that the Bank had directly paid any        wages to the<\/p>\n
workmen.       After appreciating this evidence, Labour<\/p>\n
Court came to the finding that the very        document<\/p>\n
produced by claimants themselves show that they were<\/p>\n
engaged as personal drivers of the Officers.          The<\/p>\n
evidence reveal that they were neither appointed nor<\/p>\n
terminated by the Bank.        Bank had not exercised<\/p>\n
supervision or control over the workmen. They were not<\/p>\n
paid by the Bank but by the Officers directly. No leave<\/p>\n
was even applied for or granted by the Bank to these<\/p>\n
workmen at any time.        It is in the light of these<\/p>\n
overwhelming materials on record, Tribunal came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the workmen were not employees of the<\/p>\n
Bank but personal drivers of the Officers concerned. The<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15967\/2007
\n                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner relied heavily on the decision<\/p>\n
in Bank of Baroda         v.   Ghemarbhai      Harjibhai<\/p>\n
Rabari<\/a> (2005 (2) supreme 628), the facts of which,<\/p>\n
according to the petitioner, are on all fours with the<\/p>\n
facts of this case. But I find from that decision that, in<\/p>\n
that decision the Supreme Court relied on certain<\/p>\n
vouchers for payment of wages to the drivers involved in<\/p>\n
that case to come to the conclusion that the workmen<\/p>\n
were actually employed by the Bank itself.   In this case,<\/p>\n
vouchers were produced in evidence all of which show<\/p>\n
that the payment was as reimbursement to the officers<\/p>\n
who were employing the workmen as personal drivers<\/p>\n
and there was no direct payment by the Bank to the<\/p>\n
workmen. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the<\/p>\n
contention of the petitioner that the facts of that case<\/p>\n
are similar to those of this case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.   In the above circumstances,      I am satisfied that<\/p>\n
there is no perversity whatsoever in the appreciation of<\/p>\n
evidence by the Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court.        Without<\/p>\n
any finding that the findings are perverse, I cannot<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).15967\/2007
\n                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
interfere with the award. Therefore the writ petition<\/p>\n
fails and accordingly the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                S.SIRI JAGAN
\n                                     Judge<\/p>\n
mrcs<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The District President vs The Zonal Manager on 2 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 15967 of 2007(A) 1. THE DISTRICT PRESIDENT, … Petitioner 2. P.M.BENJAMIN, S\/O.LATE MICHAEL.P.P., 3. T.V.JOSEPH, THARASSERY HOUSE, Vs 1. THE ZONAL MANAGER, … Respondent 2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL For Petitioner […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe District President vs The Zonal Manager on 2 November, 2007 - 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\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The District President vs The Zonal Manager on 2 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-07T11:44:36+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The District President vs The Zonal Manager on 2 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-07T11:44:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1210,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007\",\"name\":\"The District President vs The Zonal Manager on 2 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-07T11:44:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The District President vs The Zonal Manager on 2 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"The District President vs The Zonal Manager on 2 November, 2007 - 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\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The District President vs The Zonal Manager on 2 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-07T11:44:36+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The District President vs The Zonal Manager on 2 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-07T11:44:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007"},"wordCount":1210,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007","name":"The District President vs The Zonal Manager on 2 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-07T11:44:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-district-president-vs-the-zonal-manager-on-2-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The District President vs The Zonal Manager on 2 November, 2007"}]},{"@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\/65218","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=65218"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65218\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}