{"id":80620,"date":"1963-05-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-05-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963"},"modified":"2017-03-18T05:01:04","modified_gmt":"2017-03-17T23:31:04","slug":"khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963","title":{"rendered":"Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 719, \t\t 1964 SCR (3) 506<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKHARDAH CO.  LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHEIR WORKMEN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n02\/05\/1963\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR  719\t\t  1964 SCR  (3) 506\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1969 SC 983\t (9)\n R\t    1973 SC1227\t (21)\n\n\nACT:\n     Industrial Dispute-Dismissal of workman after  domestic\nenquiry-Failure\t of enquiry officer to record  finding-Power\nof Industrial Tribunal-If can discard the enquiry and decide\non merits.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  appellant  dismissed\tone  of\t its  workmen  on  a\ndomestic enquiry held by its Manager who did not record\t any\nfindings,  took some of the evidence in the absence  of\t the\nworkman and found him guilty of misconduct under Rule 14 (c)\n(i)  and  (viii)  of the Standing  Orders.   The  Industrial\nTribunal  held\tthat  the  dismissal  was  unjustified\t and\ndirected  the  appellant  to reinstate\tthe  employee.\t The\nrespondent Union's case was that the dismissed workman,\t who\nwas the Organising Secretary of the union, was dismissed  by\nthe appellant mala fide with the purpose of victimising\t him\nfor his trade union activities.\t The dispute centered  round\nthe question whether the strike which the dismissed  workman\nwas  charged as having instigated was really  instigated  by\nhim or was the spontaneous result of the treatment meted out\nby the appellant to another workman who was sick and fainted\non  the day the strike started.\t The case of  the  appellant\nwas that this latter workman was not present on that day  at\nall.   This  was  belied by the record\tand  the  Industrial\nTribunal  without attaching any importance to  the  domestic\nenquiry\t held  by the Manager dealt with the merits  of\t the\ndispute\t itself\t and  found in\tfavour\tof  the\t respondent,\nholding\t that the management was unjustified  in  dismissing\nthe  workman on the report of the Manager which was  neither\nfair  nor honest.  On behalf of the appellant  reliance\t was\nplaced on the decision of this Court in Indian Iron &  Steel\nCo.  Ltd.  v. Their Workmen and<\/a> it was\tcontended  that\t the\nIndustrial  Tribunal  was in error in interfering  with\t the\ndecision of the management.\n     Held  the Industrial Tribunal was right  in  discarding\nthe domestic enquiry.  Although this Court has consistently\n 507\nrefrained from interfering with the conclusions of  domestic\nenquiries in industrial matters unless one of the four tests\nlaid  down in Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their  Workmen<\/a>\nwas  satisfied,\t the essential basis on which this  view  is\nfounded\t is  that  the domestic enquiry\t must  be  conducted\nfairly\tand  properly in conformity with the  principles  of\nnatural\t justice.   The evidence on which  the\tcharges\t are\nsought to be proved against the workman must normally be led\nin  his presence.  The procedure of recording statements  of\nwitnesses  ex parte and thereafter producing  the  witnesses\nfor  cross-examination, unless there are compelling  reasons\nto do so, must be discouraged.\n     Departmental  enquiries under Art. 311 of\tthe  Consti-\ntution\twhere the question of motive is hardly\trelevant  do\nnot  stand  on\tthe  same footing  as  those  in  industrial\nenquiries where the question of bona fides or mala fides  of\nthe employee is often in issue.\n     Indian  Iron  & Steel Co. v. Their\t Workmen,<\/a>  (1958)  1\nL.L.J. 260, explained.\n     State of Mysore v. S. S. Makapur,<\/a> [1963] 2 S.C.R.\t943;\nM\/s.  Ke.8oram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar,<\/a> [1961] Vol. 2\nS.C.R. 809, and Union Territory of Tripura v. Gopal  Chander\nDutta Choudhri,<\/a> [1963]\tSupp.  I S.C.R. 266, referred to.\n     The failure of the Manager to record any findings after\nholding\t the enquiry was a serious infirmity in the  enquiry\nand  it\t is not for this Court to go into  the\tevidence  to\ndecide whether the dismissal was justified.\n     It is the duty of the enquiry officer in an  industrial\nenquiry to record clearly and precisely his conclusions\t and\nto  indicate  briefly  the  reasons  therefor  so  that\t the\nIndustrial  Tribunal  can judge whether they  arc  basically\nerroneous or perverse.\n     Although the Industrial Tribunal should not as a normal\nprocedure  allow evidence to be led by one party in  absence\nof the other or admit evidence after the case has been fully\nargued\tunless both the parties agree, the mere calling\t for\nthe authenticated record to see whether the workman was\t the\nOrganising  Secretary  could not amount to a breach  of\t the\nrule.\n508\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 705  of
\n1962.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by special leave from the Award dated  September
\n19,  1961 of the Fourth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal  in
\nCase No. VIII-42 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
     H.\t  N. Sanyal, Solicitor-General of India and
\nP.   E. Chatterjee, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     D.L. Sen and Janardhan Sharma, for the respondents.
\n     1963.   May 2. The judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\n       GAJENDRAGADKAR  J.-This\tappeal\tarises\tout  of\t  an
\nindustrial dispute between the appellant, Khardah Co.  Ltd.,
\nand the respondents, its workmen.  The dispute was in regard
\nto  the,  dismissal  of the  appellant’s  employee,  Samiran
\njadav.\tThe respondents alleged that the said dismissal\t was
\nunjustified,  whereas, according to the appellant, the\tsaid
\nemployee  had  been  properly and  validly  dismissed.\t The
\ndispute\t which was referred to the 4th Industrial  Tribunal,
\nWest  Bengal,  for  its adjudication was  whether  the\tsaid
\ndismissal was justified, and to what relief, if any, was the
\nworkman entitled?  The Tribunal has held that the  dismissal
\nwas  unjustified  and so, it has directed the  appellant  to
\nreinstate  the said employee to his old post within a  month
\nfrom the date of the publication of the award.\tIt has\talso
\nordered\t that  the  period starting from  the  date  of\t the
\ndismissal  till the date of reinstatement should be  treated
\nas leave without pay and as such, should be counted  towards
\nthe  length of service.\t It is against this award  that\t the
\nappellant has come to this Court by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
 509<\/span><\/p>\n
     The respondent’s case was that jadav had been dismissed
\nby  the appellant mala fide with the motive  of\t victimising
\nhim for his trade union activities. jadav was the Organising
\nSecretary  of the Union and since he supported\tthe  Union’s
\ndemands\t very strongly, the appellant wanted to get  rid  of
\nhim.  It appears that jadav had been working as a weaver for
\nsome  years past.  He was confirmed in service\twith  effect
\nfrom  April 12, 1954.  On September 19, 1960, he went  on  a
\nweek’s\tleave.\tWhen he returned on September 26,  1960,  he
\nwas  asked  to\twork on\t machine  producing  twill,  though,
\nnormally, he was assigned work on a plain machine. jadav was
\nnot  accustomed\t to work on the\t complicated  machine  which
\nproduces  twill and so, he requested the management that  he
\nshould\tbe  asked to do his usual work on a  plain  machine.
\nThis  request was, however, turned down\t Being\tunaccustomed
\nto  work on the machine producing twill, jadav met  with  an
\naccident on September 27, 1960, and was grantedmedical
\nleave for a week ending on Saturday,\tOctober 1, 1960.  On
\nOctober, 3 1960, when\t he resumed duty, he again requested
\nthe management that  he should be permitted to work  on\t the
\nplain machine, but when his request was turned down, he told
\nthe  management that he would work on the twill\t machine  in
\nthe  second  shift  which starts from I P.M.  On  that\tday,
\nanother\t employee  Mahboob who was ailing and  had  been  on
\nleave, asked for further leave which was refused and he fell
\nunconscious while he was going to operate his machine.\tAs a
\nresult,\t 700 weavers of the -appellant stopped work and\t the
\nweaving\t section  could\t not  resume work at  1\t P.  M.\t The
\nmanagement then declared a lock-out on October 5, 1960 which
\ncontinued until October 29, 1960.\n<\/p>\n
     On\t October  3, 1960, the management  served  a  charge
\nsheet  on  jadav  in which it was  alleged  that  jadav\t had
\nwilfully disobeyed the lawful
\n510<\/span>
\nand  reasonable\t order of his superior and had\tacted  in  a
\nmanner\tsubversive of discipline.  The case against him\t was
\nthat  he had moved from one place to another in the  weaving
\nDepartment and incited workers of the said department to  go
\non  strike.   The management alleged that  by  his  conduct,
\njadav  had  committed misconduct under Rule  14(c)  (i)\t and\n<\/p>\n
(viii)\tof  the Standing Orders. jadav was  called  upon  to
\noffer  his explanation within 24 hours after receipt of\t the
\ncharge-sheet.\n<\/p>\n
     After jadav gave his explanation, an enquiry was  held.
\nAt  the initial stages of the enquiry, jadav appeared,\tbut,
\nlater,\the  did\t not  take part\t in  the  proceedings.\t The
\nappellant  contends that jadav deliberately  refrained\tfrom
\ntaking\tpart in the proceedings, whereas according.  to\t the
\nrespondents, the enquiry was conducted unfairly, and so,  it
\nbecame\timpossible  for jadav to participate  in  it.\tThis
\nenquiry\t was  conducted by the Manager\thimself\t  After\t the
\nenquiry was over, the Manager decided that jadav was  guilty
\nof  the charge, and so, dismissed him on November 21,  1960.
\nThe  respondents’  case was that the  dismissal\t was  purely
\nvindictive and was not justified at all.\n<\/p>\n
     On the other hand, the appellant’s case was that  jadav
\nhad  been  working in the weaving department both  on  plain
\nlooms and on looms that produce twill.\tWhen he returned  to
\nduty on October 3, 1960, the departmental Overseer, Mr.\t jha
\nasked  Jadav to go to his loom; but he refused to  obey\t his
\norders.\t  The  appellant further alleged  that\tjadav  moved
\ninside\tthe  weaving department and incited the\t workers  to
\nstop work.  The appellant also pleaded that a proper enquiry
\nhad  been held against jadav and it was as a result  of\t the
\nsaid enquiry that he was dismissed for misconduct under Rule
\n14  (c)(i)  &  (viii)  of  the\tCompany’s  Standing  Orders.
\nRegarding  the\tincident of Mahboob, the  appellant  alleged
\nthat
\n 511<\/span>
\nMahboob\t was  absent on October 3, 1960 and,  therefore,  no
\nquestion  of his working on any machine arose on  that\tday.
\nIn  other  words, the appellant’s contention  was  that\t the
\nUnion’s\t version  that the strike  was\tspontaneous  because
\nMahboob fainted, was untrue and the strike was in substance,
\nthe result of the instigation of jadav.\n<\/p>\n
     Before the Tribunal, some oral evidence was led by\t the
\nparties\t and  reliance was placed by the  appellant  on\t the
\nproceedings  of the enquiry itself.  The Tribunal held\tthat
\nthe  management\t had deliberately suppressed the  fact\tthat
\nMahboob\t had gone to the mill on October 3, and\t prayed\t for
\nextension  of leave which was refused, and so, the  Tribunal
\ncame  to the conclusion that the strike could not have\tbeen
\ninstigated by jadav.  The Tribunal further commented on\t the
\nfact  that  after  the\tenquiry was  held,  no\tfinding\t was
\nrecorded  by  the  Manager  who held  the  enquiry,  and  it
\nappeared  to the Tribunal that the conclusions on which\t the
\nmanagement presumably acted in dismissing jadav were of such
\na character that “no person acting fairly and honestly could
\nhave  reached them”.  The Tribunal also held that jadav\t was
\nnot  used to work on a twill loom, and so, his request\tthat
\nhe  should  be\tallowed\t to work on a  plain  loom  was\t not
\nunjustified.   Its conclusion, therefore, was that  a  grave
\ncharge\thad  been  unjustly framed against  jadav  and\tthat
\nshowed\twant  of good faith and\t Vindictiveness.   On  these
\nfindings,  the Tribunal answered the question in  favour  of
\nthe respondents and directed reinstatement of jadav.\n<\/p>\n
     On\t behalf\t of  the appellant,  the  learned  Solicitor
\nGeneral\t has strenuously urged before us that the  appellant
\nhas  held a proper domestic enquiry and has dismissed  jadav
\nbecause\t the management thought that the  enquiry  disclosed
\nthe  fact  that the charges framed against  jadav  had\tbeen
\nestablished.   He contends that it is firmly established  by
\ndecisions of this Court
\n512<\/span>
\nthat  an  Industrial Tribunal will not\tinterfere  with\t the
\naction\tof the management in dismissing its  employee  after
\nholding an enquiry into his alleged misconduct unless it  is
\nshown  that the management has not acted in good  faith;  or
\nthat the dismissal amounts to victimisation or unfair labour
\npractice, or where the management has been guilty of a basic
\nerror,\tor violation of a principle of natural\tjustice,  or
\nwhen on the materials, the finding is completely baseless or
\nperverse,  vide\t Indian Iron & Steel Company Ltd.  v.  Their
\nWorkmen.<\/a>  (1).\t There\tis  no doubt  that  this  Court\t has
\nconsistently refrained from interfering with the conclusions
\nreached.  by  the  enquiry  officer  who  Conducts  domestic
\nenquiries  against  industrial employees unless one  of\t the
\nfour tests laid down in the case of the Indian Iron &  Steel
\nCo.  Ltd.  (1)\tis  satisfied,\tbecause\t we  have  generally
\naccepted  the  view that if the enquiry is fairly  held\t and
\nleads  to the conclusion that the charge framed against\t the
\nemployee is proved, the Industrial ‘Tribunal should not\t sit
\nin appeal over the finding recorded at the said enquiry\t and
\nshould not interfere with the management’s right to  dismiss
\na workman who is found guilty of misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t would be noticed that the essential basis on  which
\nthis  view is founded is that the enquiry conducted  by\t the
\nmanagement  before  a domestic tribunal must be a  fair\t and
\njust enquiry and in bringing home to the workman the  charge
\nframed\tagainst him, principles of natural justice  must  be
\nobserved.   Normally,  evidence\t on which  the\tcharges\t are
\nsought\tto be proved must be led at such an enquiry  in\t the
\npresence  of  the workman himself.  It is true that  in\t the
\ncase of departmental enquires held against public  servants,
\nthis  Court  has observed in the State of Mysore  v.  S.  S.
\nMakapur<\/a>\t (2)  that if the deposition of a witness  has\tbeen
\nrecorded by the enquiry officer in the absence of the public
\nservant\t and  a\t copy  thereof\tis  given  to  him,  and  an
\nopportunity is given to him
\n(1) (1958) 1 I-L.  J. 260.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1963] 2 S. C. R. 943.\n<\/p>\n
 513<\/span><\/p>\n
to  cross examine the witness after he affirms in a  general
\nway the truth of his statement already recorded, that  would
\nconform\t to the requirements of natural justice; but as\t has
\nbeen  emphasised by this Court in M\/s Kesoram  Cotton  Mills
\nLtd.  v. Gangadhar<\/a> (1), these observations must\t be  applied
\nwith caution to enquiries held by domestic Tribunals against
\nthe   industrial  employees.   In  such\t enquiries,  it\t  is
\ndesirable   that  all  witnesses  on  whose  testimony\t the
\nmanagement  relies  in\tsupport of its\tcharge\tagainst\t the
\nworkman\t should\t be  examined in  his  presence.   Recording
\nevidence  in the presence of the workman concerned serves  a
\nvery important purpose.\t The witness knows that he is giving
\nevidence  against  a particular individual  who\t is  present
\nbefore\thim,  and therefore, he is cautious  in\t making\t his
\nstatement.   Besides,  when  evidence  is  recorded  in\t the
\npresence  of  the  accused  person, there  is  no  room\t for
\npersuading the witness to make convenient statements, and it
\nis always easier for an accused person to cross-examine\t the
\nwitness\t if  his  evidence  is\trecorded  in  his  presence.
\nTherefore,  we\twould  discourage  the\tidea  of   recording
\nstatements  of\twitnesses  exparte and\tthen  producing\t the
\nwitnesses   before   the  employee  concerned\tfor   cross-
\nexamination after serving him with such previously  recorded
\nstatements  even  though  the  witnesses  concerned  make  a
\ngeneral\t  statement  on\t the  latter  occasion\tthat   their
\nstatements  already recorded correctly represent  what\tthey
\nstated.\t In our opinion, unless there are compelling reasons
\nto  do so, the normal procedure should be followed  and\t all
\nevidence  should be recorded in the presence of the  workman
\nwho stands charged with the commission of acts\tconstituting
\nmisconduct.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t this connection, it is necessary to point out\tthat
\nunlike\tdomestic enquiries against public servants to  which
\nArt.  311  of  -the  Constitution  applies,  in\t  industrial
\nenquiries, the question of the bona fldes or mala fides\t off
\nthe employer is often at issue.\t ‘If it
\n(1)  [1964] Vol. 2 S. C. R. 809.\n<\/p>\n
514<\/span><\/p>\n
is  shown  that\t the employer was actuated by  a  desire  to
\nvictimise  a  workman for his trade union  activities,\tthat
\nitself\tmay,  in some cases, introduce an infirmity  in\t the
\norder’ of dismissal passed against such a workman.     The
\nquestion of motive is hardly relevant inenquiries  held
\nagainst public servants, vide UnionTerritory of Tripura
\nv.  Gopal  Chandra  Dutta Choudhuri (1).   That\t is  another
\nreason\twhy domestic enquiries in industrial matters  should
\nbe  held  with\tscrupulous regard for  the  requirements  of
\nnatural\t justice.   Care must always be taken  to  see\tthat
\nthese enquiries are not reduced to an empty formality.\n<\/p>\n
     Take  the\tpresent case where, after  the\tenquiry\t was
\nheld, the Manager who held the enquiry has not recorded\t any
\nfindings, and so, we do not know what reasons weighed in his
\nmind  and  how he appreciated the evidence led\tbefore\thim.
\nThe learned Solicitor-General contends that there was hardly
\nany  need to record any findings or to make a formal  report
\nin  the\t present  case, because the  Manager  who  held\t the
\nenquiry\t was himself competent to dismiss the employee.\t  We
\nare  not  impressed by this argument.  The whole  object  of
\nholding\t an  enquiry is to. enable the\tenquiry\t officer  to
\ndecide upon the merits of the dispute before him, and so, it
\nwould be idle to contend that once evidence is recorded, all
\nthat  the employer is expected to do is to pass an order  of
\ndismissal  which  impliedly  indicates\tthat  the   employer
\naccepted  the  view  that the  charges\tframed\tagainst\t the
\nemployee  had  been  proved.  One of  the  tests  which\t the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal  is entitled to apply in  dealing\twith
\nindustrial  disputes  of  this\tcharacter  is  whether\t the
\nconclusion  of the enquiry officer was perverse\t or  whether
\nthere  was any basic error in the approach adopted  by\thim.
\nNow, such an enquiry would be impossible in the present case
\nbecause\t we do not know how the enquiry\t officer  approached
\nthe question and what conclusions he
\nC. R. 266.\n<\/p>\n
 515<\/span><\/p>\n
reached before he decided to dismiss jadav.  In our opinion,
\ntherefore, the failure of the Manager to record any findings
\nafter holding the enquiry constitutes a serious infirmity in
\nthe enquiry itself.  The learned Solicitor-General suggested
\nthat  we  might consider the evidence ourselves\t and  decide
\nwhether the dismissal of jadav is justified or not.  We\t are
\nnot  prepared  to  adopt  such\ta  course.   If\t  industrial
\nadjudication  attaches importance to domestic enquiries\t and
\nthe  conclusions reached at the end of such enquiries,\tthat
\nnecessarily postulates that the enquiry would be followed by
\na  statement  containing  the  conclusions  of\tthe  enquiry
\nofficer.  It may be that the enquiry officer need not  write
\na very long or elaborate report ; but since his findings are
\nlikely\tto lead to the dismissal of the employee, it is\t his
\nduty to record clearly and precisely his conclusions and  to
\nindicate   briefly  his\t reasons  for  reaching\t  the\tsaid
\nconclusions.   Unless such a course is adopted, it would  be
\ndifficult for the Industrial Tribunal to decide whether\t the
\napproach  adopted  by  the  enquiry  officer  was  basically
\nerroneous or whether his conclusions were perverse.  Indeed,
\nif  the argument urged before us by the\t learned  Solicitor-
\nGeneral\t is accepted, it is likely to  impair  substantially
\nthe  value of such domestic enquiries.\tAs we  have  already
\nobserved, we must insist on a proper enquiry being held, and
\nthat means that nothing should happen in the enquiry  either
\nwhen  it  is held or after it is concluded  and\t before\t the
\norder of dismissal is passed, which would expose the enquiry
\nto  the\t criticism that it was undertaken as an\t empty\tfor-
\nmality.\t  Therefore,  we are satisfied that  the  Industrial
\nTribunal  was right in not attaching any importance  to\t the
\nenquiry\t held by the Manager in dealing with the  merits  of
\nthe dispute itself on the evidence adduced before it.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is well settled that if the enquiry is held  to  be
\nunfair, the employer can lead evidence before the
\nTribunal  and  justify his action, but in such a  case)\t the
\nquestion  as  to whether the dismissal of  The\temployee  is
\njustified  or not would be open before the Tribunal and\t the
\nTribunal  will consider the merits ,if the dispute and\tcome
\nto its own conclusion without having any regard for the view
\ntaken by the management in dismissing the employee.  If\t the
\nenquiry\t is  good and the conduct of the management  is\t not
\nmala fide or vindictive, then, of course, the Tribunal would
\nnot  try to examine the merits of the findings as though  it
\nwas  sitting in appeal over the conclusions of\tthe  enquiry
\nofficer.  In the present case, the Tribunal has come to\t the
\nconclusion  that the dismissal of jadav was not effected  in
\ngood  faith and has been actuated by a desire  to  victimise
\nhim for his trade union activities.  That is a conclusion of
\nfact which cannot be said to be perverse, and so, it is\t not
\nopen  to the,appellant to challenge its correctness  of\t the
\nmerits before us.\n<\/p>\n
     There is one point to which we ought to refer before we
\npart  with  this appeal.  It appears that the  main  dispute
\nbetween\t the  parties was whether the strike on\t October  3,
\n1960, was spontaneous, or had been instigated by jadav.\t The
\nrespondents  contended\tthat  the  treatment  given  by\t the
\nmanagement  to\tMahboob caused this strike and\t700  weavers
\nstruck work spontaneously, whereas the appellant urged\tthat
\nMahboob was not present on the said date, and so, the  story
\nthat his request for leave was not acceded to and he had  to
\nwork  is  altogether false and the strike  had\treally\tbeen
\ninstigated by jadav.  On this point, the Tribunal has made a
\ncategorical  finding against the appellant and in doing\t so,
\nit  has\t relied\t upon the minutes  of  the  Emergency  Works
\nCommittee  meeting held on October 3, 1960, at 3  P.M.\twith
\nthe  Manager himself in the chair.  These minutes show\tthat
\nwhen an enquiry was made as to why the strike had commenced,
\nit was definitely reported to the Committee that Mahboob who
\nhad
\n 517<\/span>
\ngone  on leave, had extended his leave and after the  expiry
\nof the extended leave, he reported or October 3, and pleaded
\nthat  he was still unwell and should be given still  further
\nleave,\tbut  “nobody paid any heed to his prayer”,  and\t so,
\npresumably he had to resume duty.  The minutes further\tshow
\nthat  the  Labour Officer informed the members of  the\tCom-
\nmittee that Mahboob had produced a certificate of fitness on
\nSeptember, 22, 1960 and after discussion, it was unanimously
\ndecided\t to refer his case to the Mill’s Medical Officer  on
\nwhose recommendation the leave should be considered.   These
\nminutes,  therefore, clearly prove that Mahboob had gone  to
\nthe Mill on October 3, had asked for further leave, and\t his
\nrequest for further leave was not granted.  We ought to\t add
\nthat  these minutes have been signed by the joint  Secretary
\non  the\t employer’s  side and the  joint  Secretary  on\t the
\nemployees’ side, and their correctness cannot be  impeached.
\nIt is in the light of these statements that the plea made by
\nthe  appellant before the Tribunal had to be  considered  by
\nit.\n<\/p>\n
     The plea specifically made was that Mabboob was  absent
\non  October 3, and, therefore, there was no question of\t his
\nworking\t on  any machine.  This plea would seem\t to  suggest
\nthat  Mahboob was absent from the Mill and that\t undoubtedly
\nis  not true.  The learned Solicitor-General invited  us  to
\nconsider this plea in the light of the statement made by one
\nof  the witnesses in the domestic enquiry.   This  statement
\nwas  that  Mahboob and the witness had gone  to\t the  Labour
\nOfficer\t for  extension of leave to Mahboob and\t the  Labour
\nOfficer\t had granted leave.  This statement would show\tthat
\nleave had been granted to Mahboob in the morning of  October
\n3, but as ‘we have already seen, the Labour Officer  himself
\ntold  the  members of the Works Committee at 3 P.M.  on\t the
\nsame day that leave had not been granted to Mahboob  because
\nhe had produced
\n518<\/span>
\na  certificate of fitness dated September 22, and the  Works
\nCommittee  had\tresolved  that\tMahboob’s  case\t should\t  be
\nreferred   to\tthe   Mill’s  Medical\tOfficer\t  on   whose
\nrecommendation\taction should be taken.\t Thus, there can  be
\nnot  doubt  that even if the plea made by the  appellant  is
\nliberally  construed  and  is  read  in\t the  light  of\t the
\nstatement  made\t by  one of the witnesses  at  the  domestic
\nenquiry,  the Industrial Tribunal was right in holding\tthat
\nthe stand taken by the appellant was wholly untrue and\tthat
\nMahboob\t had not been given leave on October 3.\t That  being
\nso,  if\t the  Industrial Tribunal took\tthe  view  that\t the
\nrefusal\t  of  the  management  to  give\t leave\tto   Mahboob
\nexasperated the workmen, we cannot hold that its  conclusion
\nis  erroneous  or  that its propriety  can  be\tsuccessfully
\nchallenged  before  us.\t The incident in regard\t to  Mahboob
\nforms  the main background of the strike and the anxiety  of
\nthe  appellant was to show that Mahboob was not\t present  on
\nthat date.  Therefore, once the Industrial Tribunal came  to
\nthe  conclusion that the version given by the appellant\t was
\nuntrue, it naturally changed the complexion of the whole  of
\nthe  charge-sheet  framed by the  appellant  against  jadav.
\nThat  is why the Industrial Tribunal came to the  conclusion
\nthat the conduct of the appellant in dismissing jadav showed
\nlack  of good faith and appeared to have been in  spired  by
\nthe   desire  to  victimise  jadav  for\t his   trade   union
\nactivities.\n<\/p>\n
     The  learned  Solicitor-General commented on  the\tfact
\nthat  the Tribunal had allowed the respondents to  call\t for
\nthe  register of trade unions after the arguments  had\tbeen
\nheard before it.  It appears that both the parties  appeared
\nbefore the Tribunal on January 19, 1961, when arguments were
\nheard  and the award was reserved.  The Union then filed  an
\napplication  praying  that  the trade union  record  may  be
\ncalled\tfor,  and the Tribunal ordered that  the  record  be
\ncalled for.  The grievance made by the
\n 419<\/span>
\nlearned\t Solicitor-General  is that it is improper  to\thave
\nallowed\t additional  evidence  to be called  for  after\t the
\narguments  had\tbeen heard.  We do not think  there  is\t any
\nforce  in this argument, because the only purpose for  which
\nthe  record  was called for by the Union was  to  show\tthat
\njadav was the Organising Secretary of the Union.  Since that
\nfact was presumably disputed by the appellant in arguing the
\ncase  before the Tribunal, the Union urged that\t the  record
\nkept  by the Registrar of Trade Unions would show  that\t the
\nappellant’s  plea  was\tnot  well  founded.   If,  in\tsuch
\ncircumstances,\tthe Tribunal sent for the record to  satisfy
\nitself ‘that the record showed that jadav was the Organising
\nSecretary  of  the  Union,  we\tdo  not\t think\tany  serious
\ngrievance can be made by the appellant about the conduct  of
\nthe  Tribunal.\t It is perfectly true that in  dealing\twith
\nindustrial matters, the Tribunal cannot allow evidence to be
\nled by one party in the absence of the other, and should not
\naccept\tthe request of either party to admit evidence  after
\nthe  case  has\tbeen fully argued unless  both\tthe  parties
\nagree.\tIn the present case, however, what the Tribunal\t has
\ndone,  is  merely to send for authenticated  record  to\t see
\nwhether\t jadav was the Organising Secretary of the Union  or
\nnot.\n<\/p>\n
     The  result is, the appeal fails and is dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
520<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 719, 1964 SCR (3) 506 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. PETITIONER: KHARDAH CO. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: THEIR WORKMEN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/05\/1963 BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS CITATION: 1964 AIR […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-80620","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKhardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963 - 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\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963\" \/>\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=\"1963-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-17T23:31:04+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-17T23:31:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963\"},\"wordCount\":3768,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963\",\"name\":\"Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-17T23:31:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963\"}]},{\"@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":"Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963 - 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\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-17T23:31:04+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963","datePublished":"1963-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-17T23:31:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963"},"wordCount":3768,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963","name":"Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-17T23:31:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khardah-co-ltd-vs-their-workmen-on-2-may-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963"}]},{"@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\/80620","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=80620"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80620\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}