{"id":78018,"date":"1998-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998"},"modified":"2018-01-17T10:53:27","modified_gmt":"2018-01-17T05:23:27","slug":"birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998","title":{"rendered":"Birla Textile Technical … vs Taxmaco Ltd. & Ors. on 1 December, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Birla Textile Technical … vs Taxmaco Ltd. & Ors. on 1 December, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1999 (48) DRJ 181, 1999 (81) FLR 891<\/div>\n
Author: V Jain<\/div>\n
Bench: V Jain<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Vijender Jain, J.<\/p>\n
1.
\n     This writ petition has been filed by Birla Textile Technical Employees
\nUnion  (Regd.) aggrieved by the order of respondent No. 2 to make a  reference  Mr.  Vohra,  learned Counsel for the petitioner  has  contended  thatpursuant  to a settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) read with  Section
\n18(3)  of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the management has  agreed  to
\npay  Rs.  70\/- per month as interim relief from 1st January,  1986  to  all existing  workers.  Mr. Vohra has contended that  although  the  petitioner Union  was not a party to the settlement, however in view of Section  18(3)
\nof the Industrial Disputes Act even though petitioner was not party to  the
\nsettlement,  the petitioner shall still be entitled to the benefit of  settlement  arrived  at during the currency of  the  conciliation  proceedings before  the settlement officer. Mr. Vohra has further contended  that  when there is a binding settlement, which has not been terminated in  accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 19 of the Industrial Dispute Act no dispute can be raised with regard to be said interim relief which  forms subject matter of settlement. Mr. Vohra has assailed the order of reference as  the same is incompetent in law. In support of his  submission,  learned Counsel  for the petitioner has cited Ramnagar Cane & Sugar Co.  Vs.  Jatin Chakravorty, 1961 (I) LLJ 244. The relevant para is as under :\n<\/p>\n
     “In  other words, there can be no doubt that the  settlement  arrived  at between the appellant and the Employees’  Union  during the  course of conciliation proceedings on 25th  February,  1954, would bind not only the members of the said union but all workmen employed in the establishment of the appellant at that date. That inevitably means that the respondents would be bound by the  said settlement even though they may belong to the rival union.”\n<\/p>\n
2.   To  buttress  his argument further Mr. Vohra has  also  cited  Erumeli Estate Vs. Industrial Tribunal and Others, 1962 (II) LLJ 144 and  Natarajan Vs. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Others, 1966 (I) LLJ 310.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Mr.  Vohra has further contended that in view of the law laid down  by he  Supreme  Court in P. Virudhachalam and Others. Vs. The  Management  of Lotus  Mills and Others, 1998 (78) Indian Factories & Labour  Reports  107, the settlement arrived at between the management and the other unions  were binding on all the workmen in view of Section 83 of the Act. He has further tated  that in view of the law laid down in P. Virudhachalam (supra),  the settlement  would bind all workmen even if individually they may  not  have signed  the  agreement with the management or their union  might  not  have signed  such agreement on behalf of its member workmen and has  quoted  the following from the aforesaid judgment:\n<\/p>\n
     “The  aforesaid relevant provisions of the Act, therefore,  leave no  room for doubt that once a written settlement is  arrived  at during the conciliation proceedings such settlement under Section 12(3)  has  a binding effect not only on the signatories  to  the settlement  but  also on all parties to  the  industrial  dispute which  would cover the entire body of workmen, not only  existing  workmen but also future workmen.”\n<\/p>\n
4.   Mr.  Vohra  has further contended that even if  the  petitioners  were technical  staff of the respondent, they are covered under Section 2(s)  by
\nvirtue  of the definition of workmen, under Section 2(s) of the  Industrial
\nDisputes  Act as workmen and, therefore, are entitled to the benefit  under
\nthe settlement.\n<\/p>\n
5.   On  the  other  hand, Mr. Rajinder, Dhawan, learned  Counsel  for  the respondent has contended that settlement was arrived at between the various unions of the workers who were operators. He has contended that there was a strike in five textile mills including Birla Textile Mills in Delhi in  the year 1986. A Sangharsh Committee was formed comprising of Rashtraya Textile Mazdoor  Congress  (INTUC), Rashtrya Mazdoor Congress,  Kapra  Mazdoor  Lal Jhanda Union (CITU), Textile Mazdoor Janta Union (HMS), Kapra Mazdoor  Ekta Union (AITU) which represented workers\/operators. Mr. Dhawan has  contended that  the petitioner-Union was neither a member of the  Sangharsh  Committee nor  submitted any charter of demand and so much so that they even did  not participate  in  the strike which was launched by the  Sangharsh  Committee comprising  of  five aforesaid unions. Mr. Dhawan has  contended  that  the settlement which was arrived at between the aforesaid unions is binding  on the  class of employees who have espoused their disputes and with whom  the management  has arrived at such a settlement. The petitioner being  a  distinct  and  separate  class of employees, would not be  covered  under  the settlement  and in support of his contention cited Indian Oxygen  Ltd.  Vs. Industrial Tribunal and Others, 1978 (I) LLJ 302 a Single Bench decision of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
6.   I  have  given my careful consideration to the arguments  advanced  by learned Counsel for both the parties. It is an admitted case of the parties that  a settlement was arrived at through the active participation  of  the condition officer. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law as canvassed before me by Mr. Vohra that the settlement was arrived at  during the  currency of conciliation proceedings before the conciliation  officer. There  cannot  be two opinions that if such settlement is arrived  at,  the same is binding not only to the workers or unions who have signed the same, the  same  is  binding even to those workmen who were not a  party  to  the settlement.  This kind of settlement will also be binding on not  only  the existing  workmen  but the future workmen as per the law laid  down  in  P. Virudhachalam’s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
7.   Even  otherwise,  that is on the basis of the plain  language  Section
\n18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
     18.(3)  A  settlement arrived at in the  course  of  conciliation  proceedings  under  this Act or an arbitration award  in  a  case where  a notification has been issued under Sub-section  3(a)  of Section  10A or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or  National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) all parties to the industrial dispute;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  all other parties summoned to appear in the  proceedings  as parties  to  the dispute, unless the  Board,  Arbitrator,  Labour ourt, Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be,  records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  where a party referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) is  an employer,  his heirs, successors or assignees in respect  of  the establishment to which the dispute relates; <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  where  a party referred to in Clause (a) or  Clause  (b)  is  composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the  establishment  or  part of the establishment, as the case may  be,  to which  the  dispute relates on the date of the  dispute  and  all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or
\n part.\n<\/p>\n
8.   For  harmonious  construction of Section 18(3)(d), where  the  binding
\neffect of such settlement is on all persons who were employed in the establishment  or  part  of the establishment as the case may be  to  which  the
\ndispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently
\nbecome  employee  in that establishment or part, important  aspect  is  the
\ndispute whether the petitioner in any way was related to the dispute.\n<\/p>\n
9.   In this case it is not the case of the petitioner that they were  part of the Sangrash Committee of workers who went on strike. The petitioner did not participate in the strike may be on account of the fact that they  were governed  by their own service conditions. I find force in the argument  of the  respondent that the settlement which was arrived at was not for  class of  employees represented by the petitioner. In paragraph 6 of the  counter affidavit it has been stated by the respondent that the technical staff was getting annual increment which the workers who went on strike did not  get. The members of the petitioner union got 30 days’ annual leave as against 15 days’ leave which was given to workers. Members of the petitioner union got 15  days’  sick leave whereas the workers did not get any such  leave.  All these  issues  make  the petitioner as a different and  distinct  class  of employees other than those workers who have raised the dispute.  Therefore, the word occurring in clause (d) of ub-section (3) of Section 18″  …..to which dispute relates on the date of dispute….” assumes significance.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The  petitioners were neither related to the dispute nor  participated or espoused the dispute. Still if they were performing the same king of job or belong to the same class of workers they would have been benefited under the  terms  of settlement. As I have stated above, the  petitioner  were  a distinct  and different class having a separate service conditions.  Therefore, they were not party to the dispute altogether. This will be borne out from  the fact that in the counter affidavit respondent had given the  list of 10 persons taken from the list of employees given by the petitioner  who were admittedly not the workers:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)        R.K. Aggarwal, Finance Manager\n \n\n     (2)        G.D. Bianani, Marketing Manager\n \n\n     (3)        R.L. Goel, Chief Labour Officer\n \n\n     (4)        P.S. Shekhent, General Manager (Tech.) \n \n\n     (5)        L.K. Jain, Programme Manager \n \n\n     (6)        D.N. Kohli, Law Officer\n \n\n     (7)        Radhe Shyam Kedia, Officer on Spl. Duty \n \n\n     (8)        J.P. Sarda, Sales Manager\n \n\n     (9)        K.C. Purohit, S.O.C. In-Charge\n \n\n     (10)       V.P. Mangal, Processing Manager. \n \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
11.  By  on  stretch of imagination, it could be said that  these  officers would  constitute  the same class as the workers with whom  settlement  has been  arrived  at. In the rejoinder affidavit, however, the  petitioner  in paragraph  4  has replied to the averment in the counter affidavit  in  the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
     “Names of Shri R.K. Aggarwal and others were deleted and Annexure
\n     C  is not a correct copy, para 8 is not, therefore,  admitted  as
\n     correct.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.  The stand of respondents 2 and 4, i.e., State Government is  reflected in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 4, which is to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n
     “The contents of para 1 of the writ petition are not correct.  It is  submitted  that the settlement dated 16.8.1986  covered  only those  categories of employees who were being represented by  the unions,  who were signatories to the settlement. It is  submitted that  Ekta  Union, Kapra Mazdoor, Lal Jhanda  Union,  Kapra  Mill  Mazdoor  Sangh, Textile Mazdoor, Janta Union, Textile Mills  Congress  and Rashtrya Mazdoor Textile Congress who signed the  set-tlement  only  represented the Operative Staff working  in  Birla Mills. The Operative Staff of the 4 Textile Mills including Birla Textile  Mills has gone on strike. The technical staff  of  BirlaMills whom the petitioner union represents did not go on  strike. Even  in  the past some settlements were arrived at  between  the unions  of the operative staff and benefits of  such  settlements were not given to technical staff. Technical staff is a  separate category  of  staff having their terms of  employment  which  are different\/distinct from those of the operative staff. The technical  staff,  therefore, was not covered by the  settlement  dated 16.8.1986. In view of the above, none of the questions  mentioned in para of the writ petition really arise in the present proceedings.”\n<\/p>\n
13.  There is yet another aspect of the controversy. Whether the petitioner themselves understood that the petitioner and the management were not bound under the settlement qua the petitioner? From the statement of claim before the  conciliation officer filed by the petitioner themselves in para  6  of the said settlement of claim, the petitioner took the stand that the  petitioner  was the technical staff and were also workmen of the mill and  performing the duties for the production like other workmen. They, inter alia, further  stated  in the said settlement of claim that in spite  of  various demands,  the  management has not paid the interim relief  and,  therefore, requested  the  conciliation officer to advise the management  to  pay  the interim relief failing which the case may be sent for adjudication.  Having themselves invoked the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and  asking for  reference of dispute for adjudication, the petitioner cannot now  turn round  and  say  that the reference is bad. Without  deciding  whether  the petitioners  were  covered  under the settlement  straightway  a  direction cannot  be  given  to the management for complying with the  terms  of  the settlement.\n<\/p>\n
14.  In  view  of the discussion above, I hold that the  reference  by  the State  Government at the behest of petitioner themselves cannot be said  to be invalid or illegal. I would not like to dwell much on the controversy as to  whether  the petitioners were covered under the settlement  or  not  as anything said in this order will affect the case of either party.  Respondent  No. 3 is directed to adjudicate upon the reference within a period  of three  months not affected by any observation made by this Court about  the status of the petitioner vis-a-vis the settlement.\n<\/p>\n
     The petition is disposed of with these directions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Birla Textile Technical … vs Taxmaco Ltd. & Ors. on 1 December, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1999 (48) DRJ 181, 1999 (81) FLR 891 Author: V Jain Bench: V Jain JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Birla Textile Technical Employees Union (Regd.) aggrieved by the order of […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-78018","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBirla Textile Technical ... vs Taxmaco Ltd. & Ors. on 1 December, 1998 - 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\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Birla Textile Technical ... vs Taxmaco Ltd. & Ors. on 1 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-17T05:23:27+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Birla Textile Technical … vs Taxmaco Ltd. & Ors. on 1 December, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-17T05:23:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2104,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998\",\"name\":\"Birla Textile Technical ... vs Taxmaco Ltd. & Ors. on 1 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-17T05:23:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Birla Textile Technical … vs Taxmaco Ltd. & Ors. on 1 December, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Birla Textile Technical ... vs Taxmaco Ltd. & Ors. on 1 December, 1998 - 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\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Birla Textile Technical ... vs Taxmaco Ltd. & Ors. on 1 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-17T05:23:27+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Birla Textile Technical … vs Taxmaco Ltd. & Ors. on 1 December, 1998","datePublished":"1998-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-17T05:23:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998"},"wordCount":2104,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998","name":"Birla Textile Technical ... vs Taxmaco Ltd. & Ors. on 1 December, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-17T05:23:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/birla-textile-technical-vs-taxmaco-ltd-ors-on-1-december-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Birla Textile Technical … vs Taxmaco Ltd. & Ors. on 1 December, 1998"}]},{"@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\/78018","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=78018"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78018\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78018"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78018"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78018"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}