{"id":76771,"date":"2009-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009"},"modified":"2018-06-09T15:07:16","modified_gmt":"2018-06-09T09:37:16","slug":"travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Labour Court on 12 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Labour Court on 12 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 36111 of 2003(M)\n\n\n1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. BHUVANENDRAN NAIR,\n\n3. B.SUNDERASHAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, TDB\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :12\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                                P.R.RAMAN &\n                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.\n                --------------------------------------------------\n             WP(C) NO. 36111 OF 2003 & 6221 OF 2004\n             ------------------------------------------------------------\n\n               Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009\n\n\n                               J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J<\/p>\n
       The challenge in both these Writ Petitions is against Ext.P1 Award<\/p>\n
passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam whereby the petitioners in WP(C)<\/p>\n
6221\/2004 have been ordered to be reinstated in service, however denying<\/p>\n
50% back wages.          WP(C) 36111\/2003 has been preferred by the<\/p>\n
Travancore Devaswom Board (Management) seeking to sustain the<\/p>\n
dismissal of the delinquent employees imposed by the Management, while<\/p>\n
the other Writ Petition has been preferred by the delinquent employees<\/p>\n
seeking to interfere with the denial of the 50% back wages.<\/p>\n
       2.   The first petitioner in WP(C) 6221\/2004 was employed as the<\/p>\n
`First Mahout’ in the Kodungoor Devaswom; while the second petitioner<\/p>\n
was working as the `Second Mahout’ in Chirakadavu Devaswom. Both the<\/p>\n
above persons were served with a charge sheet dated 29.11.1990 alleging<\/p>\n
various misconducts, mainly that they along with some others had jointly<\/p>\n
tortured the elephant by name Viswanathan with stick, arrow, iron rod etc.<\/p>\n
during the nights of 04.07.1990 to 09.07.1990 in the compound of the<\/p>\n
WPC NO.36111\/2003 &
\n6221\/2004                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
Tirunakkara Mahadeva Temple, finally leading to the death of the elephant<\/p>\n
occurred on 09.07.1990; thereby causing heavy loss to the Management<\/p>\n
Devaswom and tarnished the image of the Devaswom Board in the general<\/p>\n
public. Since the delinquent employees denied charges levelled against<\/p>\n
them, a domestic enquiry was conducted. On conclusion of the enquiry,<\/p>\n
the Enquiry Officer found that the charge No. 1 levelled against the<\/p>\n
delinquent employees stood proved; whereas the other charges, as to<\/p>\n
consumption of intoxicating drinks within the Devaswom compound and on<\/p>\n
such other heads were held as not proved. On the basis of the proven<\/p>\n
misconduct, considering the gravity of the same, the Management<\/p>\n
Devaswom dismissed both the above employees from the service; which<\/p>\n
led to separate industrial disputes referred and numbered as ID Nos. 8\/97<\/p>\n
and 11\/97 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    On entering appearance, both the sides submitted their<\/p>\n
pleadings. The Enquiry Officer was examined as MW1 and the Enquiry<\/p>\n
File was marked as M1 on the side of the Management; while nobody was<\/p>\n
examined and no document was produced from the side of the workmen.<\/p>\n
The Labour Court considered the validity of the domestic enquiry as a<\/p>\n
preliminary issue and after going through the enquiry report and the<\/p>\n
proceedings, it was held that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the<\/p>\n
domestic enquiry adhering to the principles of natural justice and that the<\/p>\n
WPC NO.36111\/2003 &
\n6221\/2004                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
same was valid and proper.\n<\/p>\n
       4.    After upholding the validity of the enquiry as above, the Labour<\/p>\n
Court, proceeded to analyse the question whether, the finding of the<\/p>\n
Enquiry Officer was based on the evidence adduced in the enquiry. It was<\/p>\n
observed by the Labour Court that, the materials in record did not show<\/p>\n
that the workmen had tortured the elephant with ‘iron weapons’, with<\/p>\n
intention to cause death of the elephant and hence that it could not be<\/p>\n
found that the workmen had any such common intention.                  It was<\/p>\n
accordingly held that the Management had failed to prove the first charge;<\/p>\n
simultaneously observing that the Management had not sought for any<\/p>\n
opportunity to substantiate their case before the Labour Court by raising<\/p>\n
necessary pleadings in the written statement.       Accordingly, the Labour<\/p>\n
Court held that there was no scope for adducing any fresh evidence and<\/p>\n
since the dismissal of the workmen was held as unsustainable; they were<\/p>\n
ordered to be reinstated, however denying 50% of the back wages;<\/p>\n
sustainability of which, to the extent the parties have lost, is under<\/p>\n
challenge in the above Writ Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
       5.    Learned Counsel for the petitioner Devaswom in WP(C)<\/p>\n
36111\/2003 referred to the sequence of events and asserted that the<\/p>\n
presence of the workmen with sticks and such other weapons near the<\/p>\n
elephant in the nights between 04.07.1990 and 07.07.1990, has been<\/p>\n
WPC NO.36111\/2003 &
\n6221\/2004                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
brought in evidence by some of the witnesses examined in the enquiry.<\/p>\n
Their `presence’ near the elephant is in fact conceded from the part of the<\/p>\n
workmen themselves. It is also pointed out that undue reliance is placed<\/p>\n
on the `motive’ of the delinquent employees, which is stated irrelevant in<\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings, simultaneously adding that the evidence on<\/p>\n
record   very    much    substantiates     the   charge;   particularly when<\/p>\n
`preponderance of probability’ is enough to prove the charges in a<\/p>\n
domestic enquiry. Learned counsel for the workmen, who are petitioners in<\/p>\n
WP(C) 6221\/2004, submits that the finding and reasoning given by the<\/p>\n
Labour Court, absolving the workmen from the charge and setting aside<\/p>\n
the punishment of dismissal is very much correct and proper; however<\/p>\n
pointing out that there is no justification for having denied 50% of the back<\/p>\n
wages while ordering reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    Considering the rival contentions as to the sustainability of the<\/p>\n
finding rendered, we perused the records including the deposition of<\/p>\n
witnesses.    It is very much seen from the evidence tendered by the<\/p>\n
witnesses, particularly PW10 and 13 that the said witnesses had seen the<\/p>\n
delinquent workmen near the elephant between 04.07.1990 and<\/p>\n
07.07.1990, armed with stick and such other means. In response to the<\/p>\n
moulded question put forth to them (as desired to be), as to torturing of the<\/p>\n
WPC NO.36111\/2003 &
\n6221\/2004                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
elephant, it has been answered by the said witnesses confining it just as<\/p>\n
`answer to the question’. But it remains a fact that the delinquent persons<\/p>\n
were never employed as mahouts of the elephant Viswanathan and they<\/p>\n
had absolutely no need, necessity or occasion to have come anywhere<\/p>\n
near the said elephant (as they were admittedly mahouts of some other<\/p>\n
elephants).    The version of the delinquent employees that they were<\/p>\n
standing near the elephant to watch the `domestication methods’ being<\/p>\n
pursued by the concerned mahouts of the elephant Viswanathan does not<\/p>\n
inspire any confidence at all; as the delinquent employees were not part of<\/p>\n
the general public who reached the spot just because of enthusiasm to see<\/p>\n
the training techniques, but were working as full fledged mahouts of other<\/p>\n
elephants in Kodungoor Devaswom and Chirakkadavu Devaswom<\/p>\n
respectively.\n<\/p>\n
       7.    It is very much in evidence that the elephant by name<\/p>\n
Viswanthan was being tortured by several persons during the period from<\/p>\n
04.07.1990 to 07.07.1990 and finally, the elephant succumbed to the<\/p>\n
injuries on 09.07.1990 as revealed from the report on post-mortem,<\/p>\n
showing the cause of death as the result of torture. The reasoning given<\/p>\n
by the Labour Court in paragraph 11 of the Award for interfering with the<\/p>\n
finding and punishment is that the concerned witnesses (PW10 and 13)<\/p>\n
WPC NO.36111\/2003 &
\n6221\/2004                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
have not spoken as to the `specified dates’ on which the concerned<\/p>\n
workmen had beaten the elephant; that such and such mahouts had<\/p>\n
inflicted such and such injuries with such and such weapons and further<\/p>\n
that the evidence on record did not show that the delinquent employees<\/p>\n
had tortured the elephant “with iron weapons, with intention to cause the<\/p>\n
death of the elephant” and hence that the charge was not proved.<\/p>\n
       8.     Going by the evidence on record and the degree of proof<\/p>\n
required, it is seen that the Labour Court has proceeded on the wrong path,<\/p>\n
in so far as the evidence was being counted, instead of weighing the same<\/p>\n
as a whole. Undue reliance has been placed by the Labour Court as to the<\/p>\n
alleged `motive’ of the workmen whose presence near the elephant with<\/p>\n
sticks and arms stands very much vindicated.        Further, based on the<\/p>\n
evidence, the Labour Court had arrived at a finding in the very same<\/p>\n
paragraph (para 11) that the present workmen had also beaten the<\/p>\n
elephant, though it is stated that there was no evidence that they had<\/p>\n
tortured the elephant “with iron weapons with intention to cause death” of<\/p>\n
the elephant.      It is well settled that, unlike in a criminal case,<\/p>\n
preponderance of probability is enough to prove the charge in a domestic<\/p>\n
enquiry and there is no allergy even to `hear-say’ evidence as made clear<\/p>\n
by the Apex Court in the decisions rendered in State of Haryana and<\/p>\n
WPC NO.36111\/2003 &
\n6221\/2004                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
another Vs. Rattan Singh [1982 (1) LLJ 46], S.N. Nagarajalu etc… and<\/p>\n
others Vs. Railway Board and others [1982 (2) LLJ 54]. Going by the<\/p>\n
materials on record, the relevant provisions of law and the binding judicial<\/p>\n
precedents, it cannot but be said that the Labour Court has gone wrong<\/p>\n
while interfering with the finding in respect of charge No. 1.<\/p>\n
      9.     With regard to the punishment of dismissal imposed by the<\/p>\n
Management and the scope of denial of 50% back wages, it can no more<\/p>\n
be a matter of dispute that granting of back wages or a portion of the same<\/p>\n
even in cases of reinstatement is `not automatic’ and it depends upon<\/p>\n
various facts and circumstances including absence of any other<\/p>\n
employment or income, the burden to prove which, is very much upon the<\/p>\n
workers themselves as made clear by the Apex Court on many an<\/p>\n
occasion.   It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the other<\/p>\n
mahouts who had tortured the elephant leading to its death occurred on<\/p>\n
09.07.1990 had also been dismissed from the service of the Devaswom,<\/p>\n
based on the very same domestic enquiry and that the same has become<\/p>\n
final. Considering the facts and figures, the heinous act pursued by all<\/p>\n
concerned, resulting in the death of the elephant, can’t but be deprecated.<\/p>\n
At the same time, taking note of the fact that the extent of involvement of<\/p>\n
the petitioners in WP(C) 6221\/2004 in beating\/torturing the elephant is not<\/p>\n
clearly discernible, we find that some allowance can be given to them.<\/p>\n
WPC NO.36111\/2003 &
\n6221\/2004                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
        10.   In the above circumstances, while sustaining the finding on the<\/p>\n
`first charge’ as arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and the Management, we<\/p>\n
hold that the punishment of `dismissal’ be modified as `removal from the<\/p>\n
service’, granting a total sum of Rs.2,00,000\/- each towards the service<\/p>\n
benefits payable under various heads. Taking note of the fact that the<\/p>\n
delinquent employees were paid their last drawn wages in respect of the<\/p>\n
period from November 2003 to 20.01.2006, pursuant to the interim orders<\/p>\n
dated 20.01.2006 in I.A. 18824\/2005 and I.A. 18825\/2005 in WP(C)<\/p>\n
36111\/2003, we direct the Management Devaswom (petitioner in WP(C)<\/p>\n
36111\/2003 and the second respondent in WP(C) 6221\/2004) to pay the<\/p>\n
balance amount to top up the figure to Rs.2,00,000\/- each to both the<\/p>\n
petitioners in WP(C) 6221\/2004. The balance amount shall be paid to the<\/p>\n
workers as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two<\/p>\n
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; failing which it<\/p>\n
will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
        Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n
                                           P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                   P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE<\/p>\n
dnc<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Labour Court on 12 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 36111 of 2003(M) 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. … Respondent 2. BHUVANENDRAN NAIR, 3. B.SUNDERASHAN, For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, TDB For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN The […]<\/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-76771","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTravancore Devaswom Board vs The Labour Court on 12 October, 2009 - 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\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Labour Court on 12 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-09T09:37:16+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Labour Court on 12 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-09T09:37:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1763,\"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\\\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Labour Court on 12 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-09T09:37:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Labour Court on 12 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Labour Court on 12 October, 2009 - 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\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Labour Court on 12 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-09T09:37:16+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Labour Court on 12 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-09T09:37:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009"},"wordCount":1763,"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\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009","name":"Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Labour Court on 12 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-09T09:37:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/travancore-devaswom-board-vs-the-labour-court-on-12-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Labour Court on 12 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/76771","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=76771"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76771\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76771"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76771"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76771"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}