{"id":75126,"date":"2006-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006"},"modified":"2015-11-28T22:36:03","modified_gmt":"2015-11-28T17:06:03","slug":"the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Lakshmi Mills vs The Deputy on 30 June, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Lakshmi Mills vs The Deputy on 30 June, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 30\/06\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN          \n\nW.P. No. 22606 of 2006 \n\n\nThe Lakshmi Mills \nCompany Ltd  \nPalladam Branch  \nKuppusamy Naidu Puram    \nPalladam  641 662 \nCoimbatore                              .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Deputy \n   Chief Inspector of Factories\n   Perumanallur Road\n   Tiruppur 641 602\n\n2. The President\n   Kovai Periyar Mavatta Dravida\n   Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam \n   NO.48, Tatabad 3rd Street\n   Coimbatore  641 012                  .. Respondents\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India  praying\nfor a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner         :       Mr.  V.  Karthic\nFor Respondents        :       Mr.  C.K.  Chandrasekar\n                                for M\/s.  Row &amp; Reddy for R2\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>        The  Management  has  filed  this  writ petition praying for a Writ of<br \/>\nCertiorari to call for the records of  the  first  respondent  in  proceedings<br \/>\nNa.Ka.No.A\/6513\/2002  and quash its order dated 23.06.2003 granting permanancy<br \/>\nto 49 workers belonging to the second respondent\/Union.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      The workers belonging to  the  second  respondent  Union  have<br \/>\njoined  the petitioner mill in the year 1994, 1995 and 1996, which details are<br \/>\nmentioned in Page No.25 and 26 of the typed set of  papers  and  there  is  no<br \/>\ndispute about  the said period is concerned.  It is stated by the workmen that<br \/>\nthey continuously worked in the petitioner mill.  In other words, they are  in<br \/>\ncontinuous  service  for  a  period  of  480  days  in a period of twenty four<br \/>\ncalendar months, hence, they approached the first respondent herein and  filed<br \/>\nnecessary  application  praying  to pass orders as per the provisions of Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,<br \/>\n1981, hereinafter referred to as Act.  On  receipt  of  the  same,  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent  issued  notice  to  the petitioner herein and conducted enquiry on<br \/>\n30.1 2.2002, 27.01.2003, 06.02.2003, 07.04.2003, 30.04.2003 and  19.05.2003  .<br \/>\nBefore  the  first  respondent, on behalf of the petitioner, one Ravichandran,<br \/>\nLabour Welfare Officer appeared and filed a reply on 18.04.2003.   The  second<br \/>\nrespondent  Union  have  filed  Ex.P1, Petition dated 1 0.10.2002 filed by the<br \/>\nPresident of the Union; Ex.P2, Independent petitions dated 16.10.2002 filed by<br \/>\nthe 49 employees belonging to the second respondent Union; Ex.P3, reply  dated<br \/>\n18.04.2003  filed by the petitioner and Ex.P4, Petition dated 19.05.2003 filed<br \/>\nby the President of the Union.  The first respondent, on consideration of  the<br \/>\nabove  documentary  evidence  found that the workmen are in continuous service<br \/>\nfor a period of 480 days in 24 calendar months and directed the petitioner  to<br \/>\ngrant  permanency  to  them  from  the  date on which they completed 480 days.<br \/>\nAggrieved by the said order of the first respondent, the present writ petition<br \/>\nhas been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      Mr.  Karthic, learned counsel  for  the  petitioner  submitted<br \/>\nthat  the  first  respondent, without following Rule 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nIndustrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status  to  Workmen)  Rules,<br \/>\n1981,  hereinafter referred to as Rules, has passed the impugned order without<br \/>\ninspection of records and prayed for setting aside the impugned  order  passed<br \/>\nby the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      Mr.   Chandrasekar,  learned  counsel appearing for the second<br \/>\nrespondent submitted that the proceedings under the Act is summary proceedings<br \/>\nand the petitioner herein has not disputed the fact that the  workmen  of  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent  were  continuously  employed  for  480 days in 24 calendar<br \/>\nmonths, which is evident that the list of employees and their  service  period<br \/>\nplaced  by  the  workmen  before  the first respondent was not disputed by the<br \/>\npetitioner.  When the  facts  are  not  disputed  by  the  petitioner,  it  is<br \/>\nunwarranted  for  the first respondent to inspect the factory or to peruse the<br \/>\nrecords.  In support of this contention, the learned counsel  for  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent also brought to the notice of this Court the reply dated 18.04.2003<br \/>\nfiled  by  the  petitioner  before the first respondent to show that the above<br \/>\nsaid facts are not disputed by the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of  the<br \/>\nwrit petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      I  have  carefully  considered  the  submission  of counsel on<br \/>\neither side and perused the records.   Admittedly,  the  first  respondent  is<br \/>\nconferred  with  the  power  to  deal  with  the  matter  by  way  of  summary<br \/>\nproceedings.  Section 3 of the Act runs as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;3.     Conferment   of   permanent   status    to    workmen.-    (1)<br \/>\nNotwithstanding  anything  contained  in  any  law for the time being in force<br \/>\nevery workman, who is in continuous service for a period of four  hundred  and<br \/>\neighty  days  in  a  period  of  twenty-four  calendar months in an industrial<br \/>\nestablishment shall be made permanent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2)     A workman shall be said to be  in  continuous  service  for  a<br \/>\nperiod if he is, for5 that period, in uninterrupted service, including service<br \/>\nwhich  may  be  interrupted  on  account of sickness or authorised leave or an<br \/>\naccident or a strike, which is not illegal, or a lock-out  or  on  account  of<br \/>\nnon-employment or discharge of such workman for a period which does not exceed<br \/>\nthree  months  and  during  which period a substitute has been employed in his<br \/>\nplace by the employer, or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on<br \/>\nthe part of the workman.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      The corresponding Rule to the above said Section namely Rule 3<br \/>\nand 4 of the Tamil Nadu  Industrial  Establishment  (Conferment  of  Permanent<br \/>\nStatus to Workmen) Rules, 1981 runs as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;3.     Powers  of Inspectors.- In addition to the powers conferred by<br \/>\nSection 5 of the Act, an Inspector shall, for the purpose of giving effect  to<br \/>\nthe  provisions  of  the  Act,  have  power  to do all or any of the following<br \/>\nthings, that is to say-\n<\/p>\n<p>        (i)     to satisfy himself at  each  inspection  that  the  prescribed<br \/>\nregisters and forms are properly maintained;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (ii)    to point out all such defects or irregularities as he may have<br \/>\nobserved  and to give orders for their rectification and to record and furnish<br \/>\nto the employer a summary of the defects or irregularities and of his orders;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (iii)   to  note  how  far  the  defects  pointed  out   at   previous<br \/>\ninspections  have  been removed and how far orders previously issued have been<br \/>\ncomplied with:\n<\/p>\n<p>        (iv)    to require any employer to supply or send any return  or  true<br \/>\ncopy of any document or information relating to the provisions of the Act:\n<\/p>\n<p>        (v)     to  prosecute,  conduct or defend before a Court any complaint<br \/>\nor other proceedings arising under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      Information required by the Inspector.-  The  employer  of  an<br \/>\nindustrial  establishment  shall furnish any information that an Inspector may<br \/>\nrequire for the purpose of satisfying himself whether any provision of the Act<br \/>\nor the rules made thereunder has been complied with or whether any order of an<br \/>\nInspector has been duly carried out.  Any demand by an Inspector of  any  such<br \/>\ninformation  if made during the course of an inspection shall be complied with<br \/>\nforthwith if the information is available in the  industrial  premises  or  if<br \/>\nmade in writing shall be complied with, within seven days on receipt thereof.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      It is evident from the provisions of Section 3 of the Act that<br \/>\nwhen  a  workmen is in continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period<br \/>\nof twenty four calendar months in an industrial  establishment,  he  shall  be<br \/>\nmade permanent.    As  rightly  pointed  out  by  the  counsel  for the second<br \/>\nrespondent, the list containing the date of entry of the workers into  service<br \/>\nwas  filed  claiming  that  ever  since  the  said date they are in continuous<br \/>\nservice in the petitioner\/management, which was not disputed by the petitioner<br \/>\nbefore the first respondent.  The petitioner\/ Management has admitted the fact<br \/>\nthat all the benefits were extended to the employees of the second  respondent<br \/>\non  par  with  the  permanent  workers,  but  very  strangely  stated in their<br \/>\ncorrespondence with the second respondent that if  permanency  sought  for  is<br \/>\ngranted  to  their  members,  the  same has to be extended to the employees of<br \/>\nother unions, hence, the permanency was not granted.  When the petitioner  has<br \/>\nnot  disputed  the fact that the employees of the second respondent Union have<br \/>\ncompleted 480 days of service continuously, it is unnecessary  for  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent to  go  for  inspection  of  the  factory  or  records.   The first<br \/>\nrespondent, considering the valid documentary evidence produced by the  second<br \/>\nrespondent Union has rightly passed an order directing the petitioner to grant<br \/>\npermanent  status  to  the  employees  of the second respondent Union and this<br \/>\nCourt finds no reason to interfere with the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsh<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Dy.  Chief Inspector of<br \/>\nFactories<br \/>\nPerumanallur Road<br \/>\nTiruppur 641 602<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Lakshmi Mills vs The Deputy on 30 June, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30\/06\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN W.P. No. 22606 of 2006 The Lakshmi Mills Company Ltd Palladam Branch Kuppusamy Naidu Puram Palladam 641 662 Coimbatore .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Deputy Chief [&hellip;]<\/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-75126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Lakshmi Mills vs The Deputy on 30 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Lakshmi Mills vs The Deputy on 30 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-28T17:06:03+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=\"7 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-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Lakshmi Mills vs The Deputy on 30 June, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-28T17:06:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1279,\"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\\\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006\",\"name\":\"The Lakshmi Mills vs The Deputy on 30 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-28T17:06:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Lakshmi Mills vs The Deputy on 30 June, 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":"The Lakshmi Mills vs The Deputy on 30 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Lakshmi Mills vs The Deputy on 30 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-28T17:06:03+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Lakshmi Mills vs The Deputy on 30 June, 2006","datePublished":"2006-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-28T17:06:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006"},"wordCount":1279,"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\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006","name":"The Lakshmi Mills vs The Deputy on 30 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-28T17:06:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-lakshmi-mills-vs-the-deputy-on-30-june-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Lakshmi Mills vs The Deputy on 30 June, 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\/75126","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=75126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75126\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}