{"id":8280,"date":"2002-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002"},"modified":"2016-08-10T20:51:46","modified_gmt":"2016-08-10T15:21:46","slug":"t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002","title":{"rendered":"T. Ravindran vs The Presiding Officer, Labour &#8230; on 29 January, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T. Ravindran vs The Presiding Officer, Labour &#8230; on 29 January, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: (2002) IIILLJ 160 Mad<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Rajan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A Rajan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>A.K. Rajan, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1.<br \/>\n                        This writ petition is filed against the  award<br \/>\n        passed by the Labour Court in I.D.  No.213\/90.  The petitioner<br \/>\n        before  this  court  was  the workman in the second respondent<br \/>\n        society,  namely,  Pollachi  Co-operative  House  Construction<br \/>\n        Society.  The  workman  joined  the  service on 25.10.7 6.  On<br \/>\n        19.5.89 he submitted his resignation.  It was handed  over  to<br \/>\n        the Secretary  in  person.   Subsequently on 29.5.89 he sent a<br \/>\n        letter withdrawing  the  resignation  letter.     After   this<br \/>\n        withdrawal letter was given, a communication was received from<br \/>\n        the  second  respondent  dated 11.10.89, which was received on<br \/>\n        13.10.89 by the petitioner herein stating that his resignation<br \/>\n        letter was accepted already.  Therefore, the petitioner herein<br \/>\n        raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court.   Before<br \/>\n        the  Labour  Court  he submitted that on 11.10.89 he submitted<br \/>\n        another application requesting the management to permit him to<br \/>\n        join duty.  On the same day  the  management  wrote  a  letter<br \/>\n        informing him that his resignation<br \/>\n        has  been  accepted  and he has been relieved with effect from<br \/>\n        19.5.89 itself.  Then he stated that the management has failed<br \/>\n        to understand the involuntary nature of resignation.   It  was<br \/>\n        made under  coercion  and  due  to compulsion.  Further he has<br \/>\n        stated that he sent a lawyer&#8217;s notice  on  5.3.90.    He  also<br \/>\n        stated  that  at  the time of joining duty the management took<br \/>\n        resignation letter from him without date and now the facts are<br \/>\n        twisted.  After recording the  evidence  of  workman  and  the<\/p>\n<p>        management  witness  the Labour Court dismissed the industrial<br \/>\n        dispute holding that the petitioner even earlier, twice,  gave<br \/>\n        resignation  letters  and they were withdrawn subsequently and<br \/>\n        the management gave him employment  on  humanitarian  grounds.<br \/>\n        The  workman  cannot  expect the management to act in the same<br \/>\n        manner for the  third  time.    It  was  also  held  that  the<br \/>\n        resignation  letter  was  accepted on the very same day in his<br \/>\n        presence  and  he  was  immediately  relieved   from   duties.<br \/>\n        Therefore,  the  Labour  Court has come to the conclusion that<br \/>\n        the petitioner is not  entitled  for  employment.    Aggrieved<br \/>\n        against this order the present writ petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                         2.   Learned counsel for the petitioner argued<br \/>\n        that this is a contract of employment  and  according  to  the<br \/>\n        contract  of  employment, resignation brings the employment to<br \/>\n        an end and therefore, such a termination of employment can  be<br \/>\n        done  only  in  accordance with the rules and as per the rules<br \/>\n        applicable to him, 15 days  notice  is  necessary  for  either<br \/>\n        party to  bring the contract to an end.  Therefore, the letter<br \/>\n        of resignation will come into effect only on the completion of<br \/>\n        15 days.  Therefore,  the  counsel  submitted  that  when  the<br \/>\n        letter  of  resignation was given on 19.5.89, it can come into<br \/>\n        effect after the completion of 1 4 days and that  even  before<br \/>\n        the  completion  of  14 days. On 29.5.89 itself the petitioner<br \/>\n        sent  a  letter  withdrawing  his   letter   of   resignation.<br \/>\n        Therefore, there cannot be a termination of service before the<br \/>\n        expiry of 14 days.  Therefore, the petitioner is deemed not to<br \/>\n        have  resigned  and  he is deemed to be continuing in service.<br \/>\n        Therefore, the order of the Labour Court is illegal and it  is<br \/>\n        liable to  be  set  aside.    In  support  of his argument the<br \/>\n        learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh<br \/>\n        High Court in Sudha Nagaraj, K.  v.    Chief  Manager,  Andhra<br \/>\n        Bank (1997-III-LLJ 301) and  G.M.,  B.H.E.L.  Ltd.  v.  Rajita<br \/>\n        Suryakanta (1999-II-LLJ 549) where  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High<br \/>\n        Court  has  held that when the resignation letter was tendered<br \/>\n        in writing, it has to be accepted  only  in  writing  and  the<br \/>\n        acceptance of  resignation  cannot be communicated orally.  In<br \/>\n        the  present  case  there  was  no  letter  of  acceptance  of<br \/>\n        resignation  and therefore, the learned counsel submitted that<br \/>\n        the resignation of the workman has not become effective and he<br \/>\n        is deemed to be continuing the service.    He  further  relied<br \/>\n        upon the decision of the Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/255061\/\">Punjab National Bank<br \/>\n        v.  Shri P.K.  Mittal<\/a> (1989-I-L.L.J.  368) wherein the Supreme<br \/>\n        Court held that acceptance of resignation before the expiry of<br \/>\n        the  notice  period  will not be effective and the resignation<br \/>\n        alleged to have been accepted immediately is not valid.    The<br \/>\n        judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court is based on the facts of the<br \/>\n        particular case.  In that case the resignation  letter  itself<br \/>\n        contained a  condition.    In  that  letter of resignation the<br \/>\n        employee had added that the date of receipt of  letter  should<br \/>\n        be  treated  as  the  date of commencement of notice period so<br \/>\n        that inclusive of the same his resignation will  be  effective<br \/>\n        from 30.6.86.  In that case since the resignation was accepted<br \/>\n        on  7.2.86,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  it  was  without<br \/>\n        jurisdiction.  Therefore, it is the case where acceptance  was<br \/>\n        against the terms contained in the very letter of resignation.<br \/>\n        In  the same case, the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 holds that<br \/>\n        the employee may choose to resign  with  immediate  effect  or<br \/>\n        with  a notice of less than three months if the bank agrees to<br \/>\n        the same.  Therefore, the preposition that was  laid  down  in<br \/>\n        that  case  by  the  Supreme  Court is that when the letter of<br \/>\n        resignation fixes the date from which  it  has  to  come  into<br \/>\n        force, any acceptance prior to that date is not valid.  At the<br \/>\n        same  time  the  notice  period can be waived by either of the<\/p>\n<p>        parties if both of them agrees for the same.  Therefore,  this<br \/>\n        decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  not  of any help to the<br \/>\n        petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3.  Learned counsel for the petitioner  relied<br \/>\n        upon  another  decision  of  the  Patna High Court in Managing<br \/>\n        Committee, S.G.A.S.High School v.  State<br \/>\n        where  the  Patna  High Court held that under section 5 of the<br \/>\n        Indian Contract Act which provides  that  a  proposal  may  be<br \/>\n        revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance<br \/>\n        is  complete  as  against  the proposer, and as provided under<br \/>\n        section 4, the communication of acceptance of the proposal  is<br \/>\n        complete  as  against the proposer when it is put in course of<br \/>\n        transmission to him so as to  be  out  of  the  power  of  the<br \/>\n        acceptor.   Therefore, relying upon this decision, the learned<br \/>\n        counsel contended that the acceptance  shall  be  in  writing.<br \/>\n        The counsel also relied upon the decision in Janardan Misra v.<br \/>\n        State   for the same preposition in<br \/>\n        paragraph 9  of  that  judgment.    This   only   holds   that<br \/>\n        resignation can be withdrawn before it was accepted.  The word<br \/>\n        &#8220;communicate&#8221; does  not  mean  communication in writing.  This<br \/>\n        judgment cannot be  understood  merely  because  a  letter  of<br \/>\n        acceptance  is  transmitted  before  acceptance,  to mean that<br \/>\n        acceptance shall only be in writing and that acceptance should<br \/>\n        be communicated in writing.  The learned counsel  also  relied<br \/>\n        upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Power Finance Corpn.<br \/>\n        Ltd.  v.   P.    K.Bhatia (1997 (2) LLN 5) wherein the Supreme<br \/>\n        Court has held that the conditional letter of resignation will<br \/>\n        not be effective unless the condition is fulfilled.   In  that<br \/>\n        case in the letter of resignation itself there was a condition<br \/>\n        that  the  relieving  order  should  be  handed  over  to  him<br \/>\n        immediately and the ex gratia payable be informed to  him  and<br \/>\n        his dues  be  paid immediately.  Since the order accepting the<br \/>\n        voluntary retirement was a  conditional  one,  the  conditions<br \/>\n        ought to have been complied with.  Before the conditions could<br \/>\n        be   complied   with,   the  appellant  withdrew  the  scheme.<br \/>\n        Consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did not<br \/>\n        become effective.  Therefore, this decision also cannot  apply<br \/>\n        to the facts of the present case.  Learned counsel also relied<br \/>\n        upon  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme Court in Central Bank of<br \/>\n        India v.  J.N.Nagpal (2001(6) Scale 381).  In  that  case  the<br \/>\n        employee  tendered  his resignation on 2.4.88 but it was dated<br \/>\n        1.7.88, to be effective from 1.10.88.  The  employee  withdrew<br \/>\n        his  resignation  on  2.7.88,  but  the  employer accepted the<br \/>\n        resignation on 6.9.88 itself.  On the facts of  the  case  the<br \/>\n        Supreme Court held that acceptance of resignation is not valid<br \/>\n        because the resignation was to take effect only from 1.1 0.88.<br \/>\n        Since  the  resignation  was  withdrawn  on 2.7.88 itself, the<br \/>\n        acceptance of resignation on 6.9.88 was held invalid.   Though<br \/>\n        the counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued relying upon<br \/>\n        these  judgments,  these  decisions do not come to the help of<br \/>\n        the petitioner in any manner since the facts of the  case  are<br \/>\n        different.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4.    Learned   counsel   for  the  respondent<br \/>\n        referred to the evidence adduced before the lower  court  both<br \/>\n        by the  petitioner  as well as the management.  The petitioner<br \/>\n        himself has admitted that on 19.5.89 he gave  the  resignation<br \/>\n        letter.   He  has  not  stated  under  what  circumstances the<br \/>\n        resignation letter  was  given.    That   letter   was   given<br \/>\n        voluntarily without  coercion  by any person.  It was given to<br \/>\n        the Secretary of the society.  The Secretary  of  the  society<br \/>\n        accepted it  relieving him from the duties.  He does not known<br \/>\n        when the endorsement was made in that letter.  He did not come<\/p>\n<p>        to work after the resignation letter was handed over.  Further<br \/>\n        he states that once the employee was relieved  it  means  that<br \/>\n        resignation letter  has  been  accepted.   But he says that it<br \/>\n        cannot be said  that  it  is  an  official  acceptance.    The<br \/>\n        management  witness  also  says that immediately on receipt of<br \/>\n        the letter of resignation he made an endorsement on the letter<br \/>\n        itself accepting the resignation and he was  relieved  and  in<br \/>\n        his place another person was put in charge.  Since that person<br \/>\n        also did not attend he performed that work.  He also says that<br \/>\n        there  is  no  rule in the bye-laws of the society prescribing<br \/>\n        the number of days  required  for  accepting  any  resignation<br \/>\n        letter.   From  his evidence it is seen that the employee gave<br \/>\n        the letter of resignation  voluntarily  and  it  was  accepted<br \/>\n        immediately  and the acceptance was communicated to him orally<br \/>\n        on the same day and the employee also understood it  that  his<br \/>\n        resignation  has  been accepted and therefore, he did not turn<br \/>\n        to duty from that date onwards.  Only after ten days he sent a<br \/>\n        letter withdrawing the resignation.    Though  the  letter  of<br \/>\n        accepting resignation was not communicated to him earlier, the<br \/>\n        employee   was   made   to  understand  immediately  that  his<br \/>\n        resignation has been accepted and he was relieved.  Therefore,<br \/>\n        the communication that is required is the communication to the<br \/>\n        person  concerned  in  the  manner  in  which   the   employee<br \/>\n        understands that communication.  The communication need not be<br \/>\n        in writing.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5.   Counsel  for  the  petitioner strenuously<br \/>\n        contended  that  in  the  case  of   employer   and   employee<br \/>\n        relationship,  the  master and servant relationship exists and<br \/>\n        in such a situation acceptance can only be in writing to bring<br \/>\n        the termination of  contract  valid.    In  other  words,  the<br \/>\n        argument  of  the  learned  counsel  for the petitioner is the<br \/>\n        contract cannot be brought into existence or terminated except<br \/>\n        in writing.    This  argument  is  not  accepted  because  the<br \/>\n        contract  under  the  Indian  Contract Act can be brought into<br \/>\n        existence orally.  Offer can be  made  orally  and  acceptance<br \/>\n        also can be made orally.  Once the offer is accepted, there is<br \/>\n        a contract.  Similarly, once the offer of resignation has been<br \/>\n        accepted,  then  also  the termination of service is complete.<br \/>\n        Therefore, the Labour Court has  rightly  concluded  that  the<br \/>\n        resignation  was  accepted  and  that was valid and therefore,<br \/>\n        dismissed the industrial dispute.  The award of  Labour  Court<br \/>\n        is perfectly valid and I find no reason to interfere with that<br \/>\n        order.  The writ petition is dismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court T. Ravindran vs The Presiding Officer, Labour &#8230; on 29 January, 2002 Equivalent citations: (2002) IIILLJ 160 Mad Author: A Rajan Bench: A Rajan ORDER A.K. Rajan, J. 1. This writ petition is filed against the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.213\/90. The petitioner before this court was the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8280","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>T. Ravindran vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 29 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T. Ravindran vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 29 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-10T15:21:46+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\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T. Ravindran vs The Presiding Officer, Labour &#8230; on 29 January, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-10T15:21:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1871,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002\",\"name\":\"T. Ravindran vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 29 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-10T15:21:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T. Ravindran vs The Presiding Officer, Labour &#8230; on 29 January, 2002\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"T. Ravindran vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 29 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T. Ravindran vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 29 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-10T15:21:46+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\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T. Ravindran vs The Presiding Officer, Labour &#8230; on 29 January, 2002","datePublished":"2002-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-10T15:21:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002"},"wordCount":1871,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002","name":"T. Ravindran vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 29 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-10T15:21:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ravindran-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-january-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T. Ravindran vs The Presiding Officer, Labour &#8230; on 29 January, 2002"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/8280","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=8280"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8280\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}