{"id":74889,"date":"2008-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-05-07T01:39:51","modified_gmt":"2015-05-06T20:09:51","slug":"u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"U T Poovaiah S\/O U P Thimmaiah vs The Management Of Tata Electronic … on 2 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
U T Poovaiah S\/O U P Thimmaiah vs The Management Of Tata Electronic … on 2 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy<\/div>\n
..2..\n\nTHIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER AR3TlC\"g\u00a7:$I:'\nAND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION 012' INDIA p:2AI(II:~II\u00a7;;..e1*;;IIT \nQUASH THE ORDER D'r.5-5-2002 PASSED, BY THE _ \n\nSECOND ABEL. LABOUR comm',JI3ANGAL\u00e9'RE;sMA;)'E IN\n\nAPPLICATION No.32\/90 AS THE S;-i'\\ME'I\u20ac~,_ UNSU-Sfi'A_IP\u00a7ABLE'\u00ab\n\nAhi\ufb01 MANIFE$I'LY ERRONEOUS.\n\nTHIS WRIT PE'i'ITIO!~!: KSOMIENG' ON* 'P'vf)R.V.'RENAL-.t\"\n\nHEARING THIS DAY, THE COU'R,'f*MADE'THE IFQLLTQWING:\n.     \n<\/pre>\n
The petitioner whee   in H-2
\nwas in terme. C\u00a7iit:I’:1e    c1td.28.{)2.1983,
\ndisclosing ‘. 15-425-20-435-\n<\/p>\n
25-56(J’;vv’w.4:.;;  the basic salary was \ufb01xe\u00e9.
\nat Rs.38′{\u00ab)V_,’._   allowance of RS130\/..<\/p>\n
p.m._\u00a7 ‘HRA of RvsA.:1O#2\/ – p.1.n., totalling to Rs.612\/- p.n1., with<\/p>\n
 “ot1:I\u00e9r.be\ufb01ic\ufb01ts,._ 011 \ufb01femo\ufb01on fromg\ufb01rade-F2 to F3 the basic<\/p>\n
  in Grade–F’3. The Employees Associati-an<\/p>\n
eIit’e.redV__into   agreement with the respondent on 28.3.1990<\/p>\n
   the of conc\ufb02iairion proceedings under Section 12(3)<\/p>\n
 fi58(3) of the Industxial DiS\u00a73″I,11’\u00a3S Act 1947 , for 31710171: Act,<\/p>\n
 _,_W\u00a7ereunder bene\ufb01ts extencied zetxespeciively w.e.f.<\/p>\n
1. 1.1990, resulted in the \ufb01xing of the petitioner’s basic pay<\/p>\n
as on 1.1.1990, after sanction of annua} increment, at<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
-4-<\/span><\/p>\n
2. Whether the applicant is K<\/p>\n
computation of the amount as c1a1’med_’E’\u00a7V__<\/p>\n
3. What order ‘2<\/p>\n
2. The labour court  cTie;\u00a7o’e:iefi0n.~a1  ..<\/p>\n
applicant as AW-1 and     the ‘V<\/p>\n
respondent examined the Pereonziel  as KW-1 and
\nmarked the Memora,nduii1’oi”‘  .\n<\/p>\n
3. The   the material on<\/p>\n
1’ecor{i,*’tlfie’   \u00e91ii(i”documenta1y, by order (it.
\n5.6.2{}(‘\u00a7”2 ”  the vexsion of the<\/p>\n
management aJ:tdV  the pei:itioner’s basic pay fixed at<\/p>\n
  *-__Wasui11\u00abaecordance with the terms of settlezzaent<\/p>\n
 ‘\u00e9iri<i-.aee;\u00a7rdis2\u00a7;i3r;._ disnzlieised the application. Hence this writ<\/p>\n
pe\u00e9itazonf ' _ * <\/p>\n
'~*'!\u00bb_." Having heax\ufb01 the learned counsel for the parties,<\/p>\n
A "ii the pleadings and the records of the labour Conn,<\/p>\n
'  \ufb01\u00e9ghat is apparent, is the fact that the petitioner's assertion,<\/p>\n
that on 28.2.1983, the date of entry into the services of the<\/p>\n
respondent-Management, the letter of appointnzxent of even<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
-5.\n<\/p>\n
date, \ufb01xed the basic salary at R3380] – p.m., in the  e<\/p>\n
of F-22 male, as set out in paragaph 3 of mg: ”<\/p>\n
before the labour court, was admitted by  ;gs;ggnac:.:  & VA<\/p>\n
its statement of objections dt. 23.3;”2.e99’e2*a’t    <\/p>\n
Iii .\n<\/p>\n
other words, the p1eadingsT ._V<:5f…v_the "pe1tiee\u00bb. f1ieehse; an* L'<\/p>\n
admission on the part ef the  ree }'s\u00bb:3×1::S.e;t1t-.l.?s}I$s::1a_ge;z\u00a7e11t that
\nthe basic pay of the  into service,
\nwas \ufb01xed at Ra.I38()"\/\u00ab   pay in the pay
\nscale for    In fact in the
\nre-exai3;in4et1AieVIg'v.";V).fIV_  examined as AW-1, he
\ndepose\u20ac1A"\u20ac.21"at aita.  ef joining the seivice, as he<\/p>\n
demanded a Vh\u00a7.g1 1er1  the management \ufb01xed the basaic<\/p>\n
   -. deposition in re-exanzm ation remam s<\/p>\n
 -7″ _ V _’,<\/p>\n
   examination of the order impuged diecioses<\/p>\n
” 4 “that Labour Court, did not consider this very relevant<\/p>\n
—  ‘eglinieeion and the oral testimony of the petitioner. The<\/p>\n
 “Iebour court having faiied to apply its mind to the znaierial<\/p>\n
can record, more appropriately, that on the date of<\/p>\n
appeintment the respondent, was granted addi\ufb01onal<\/p>\n
\ufb01jk<\/p>\n
..6..\n<\/p>\n
increments so as to fix the basic pay at Rs.38O\/_-m_1i.xi;i;x
\noccasioned grave injustice to the petitioner. i ii  <\/p>\n
6. Yet another aspect of the   ‘V<\/p>\n
the Labour Court is that Clause Bliiofiit\u00e9ie <\/p>\n
sememem dtd. 23.03.1990, EkL’R:i’;\u00bbentexed_bei}eeen the
\nAsssoeiation of eztiploy\u00e9ezgg’   ifviaiiageiiienti, in the
\npresence of the Labour  Divisionxil,<\/p>\n
deals with Wage’   the parties agreed<\/p>\n
to    in respect of those
\nemployees: who   to their colleagues in their<\/p>\n
mspee\ufb01ve 2 i”<:.:iategoIVi.e;%i~. i  on 31.12. 1989. Although<\/p>\n
 =  _   counsel for the reapondent contends<\/p>\n
 'ttiia"i-v.g3..,4i1he:*e" existed a Wage anomaly as between the<\/p>\n
petitioner  senior, in other wozds, the seniofs salary<\/p>\n
  that of the petitioner, a junior, in terme of<\/p>\n
 Ciamze  of EXR1, the iaasie pay; of the petitioner was<\/p>\n
  \u00e9owrz from R:-3.1.295\/~ to Rs.1,215\/-, I am not<\/p>\n
" hiviiizapiessed by that submission. I say so because clause 21 of<\/p>\n
Ex.R1 does not provide for stepping down of the Wages of an<\/p>\n
empioyee, junior in tank, but provides for \ufb01ment of<\/p>\n
UK<\/p>\n
..'?-\n<\/p>\n
appmp\ufb01ate salary to an employee senior to <\/p>\n
Thus 2: complaining senior employee having a__g ti:\u00a7vaiice’ aver’ K V’ <\/p>\n
the fitment of his salary less ._the p’:::fT1T:’_tiipcv_1;.e_i’,’:Vizhne”e<\/p>\n
respondent was required to \ufb01t an   ~.<\/p>\n
on the seniority and not mdu;e\u00e9’–e,the V.  ‘Hfi:}1′”  his ‘V<\/p>\n
jtuuor.\n<\/p>\n
7. Having regard  \ufb01,th\u00e9i’t.’tIi:ei.’Vpetitioner’s basic<\/p>\n
salary on ent_;j\u00a7}f  ‘_se1 \u00a7ic\u00e9_,  a’eRs.38D\/ ~ pin, the<\/p>\n
basic     F3 at the first instance<\/p>\n
was – as on 1.1.3990 and the<\/p>\n
stepping  to Rs.I,215j- hi the guise of<\/p>\n
 <  _apfj1\u00a7:=i\ufb01\u00a3\u00bb.e'VC!guse{\u00a7x.R1, in my cons\ufb01exed opinion, was<\/p>\n
. V '   V<\/p>\n
A  s.,'%1e~-me fallacy in the reasoning of the labour court, in<\/p>\n
  and cumoxy nature of consideratiml<\/p>\n
\u00ab   uizdeftaken therein without reference to the adnxission of the<\/p>\n
  : __1ft_?5$p<)3:1cieIt.t ever the {ixatinn (if the basic: pay of the pe\ufb01tioner<\/p>\n
 on the daft: of induction into service coupied with the e\ufb01ect<\/p>\n
of Clause 2} of Ex.R} not empowe\ufb01ng the reduction of the<\/p>\n
MK<\/p>\n
;:_\/<\/p>\n
.8-\n<\/p>\n
salary \ufb01xed for juniors being relevant <\/p>\n
impugned is shown to su\ufb01br from   _ vb <\/p>\n
occasioning gave injus\ufb01ce to  j$e’.i\ufb01:)ne:r <\/p>\n
interference.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the writ  is   dt. ‘V<\/p>\n
5.2.2002 A1mexure–G c:\u00a3._t_he iabo\ufb01titjbun is ‘quas\ufb01ed. The
\nApplication No.32\/90    of the<\/p>\n
pc\ufb01tionefs basic     on 1.1.1990 in<\/p>\n
the pm\ufb01iciicd;  as a concomitant, is<\/p>\n
e11titlec’i”-to  jb\ufb01\ufb01nhe\ufb01ts.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-gm
\nJudge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court U T Poovaiah S\/O U P Thimmaiah vs The Management Of Tata Electronic … on 2 September, 2008 Author: Ram Mohan Reddy ..2.. THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER AR3TlC”g\u00a7:$I:’ AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION 012′ INDIA p:2AI(II:~II\u00a7;;..e1*;;IIT QUASH THE ORDER D’r.5-5-2002 PASSED, BY THE _ SECOND ABEL. LABOUR comm’,JI3ANGAL\u00e9’RE;sMA;)’E IN APPLICATION […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-74889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nU T Poovaiah S\/O U P Thimmaiah vs The Management Of Tata Electronic ... on 2 September, 2008 - 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\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U T Poovaiah S\/O U P Thimmaiah vs The Management Of Tata Electronic ... on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-06T20:09:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"U T Poovaiah S\\\/O U P Thimmaiah vs The Management Of Tata Electronic … on 2 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-06T20:09:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":947,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008\",\"name\":\"U T Poovaiah S\\\/O U P Thimmaiah vs The Management Of Tata Electronic ... on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-06T20:09:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U T Poovaiah S\\\/O U P Thimmaiah vs The Management Of Tata Electronic … on 2 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"U T Poovaiah S\/O U P Thimmaiah vs The Management Of Tata Electronic ... on 2 September, 2008 - 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\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U T Poovaiah S\/O U P Thimmaiah vs The Management Of Tata Electronic ... on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-06T20:09:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"U T Poovaiah S\/O U P Thimmaiah vs The Management Of Tata Electronic … on 2 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-06T20:09:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008"},"wordCount":947,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008","name":"U T Poovaiah S\/O U P Thimmaiah vs The Management Of Tata Electronic ... on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-06T20:09:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-t-poovaiah-so-u-p-thimmaiah-vs-the-management-of-tata-electronic-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U T Poovaiah S\/O U P Thimmaiah vs The Management Of Tata Electronic … on 2 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/74889","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=74889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74889\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}