{"id":83967,"date":"1973-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973"},"modified":"2018-12-29T23:43:00","modified_gmt":"2018-12-29T18:13:00","slug":"assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973","title":{"rendered":"Assam Match Company Limited vs Bijoy Lal Sen & Others on 27 April, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Assam Match Company Limited vs Bijoy Lal Sen & Others on 27 April, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2155, \t\t 1974 SCR (1) 116<\/div>\n
Author: C Vaidyialingam<\/div>\n
Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nASSAM MATCH COMPANY LIMITED\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBIJOY LAL SEN & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/04\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 2155\t\t  1974 SCR  (1) 116\n 1974 SCC  (3) 163\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1982 SC 854\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial   Disputes  Act  1947-S.   9A-Whether   appellant\ncontravened  the  section when it changed  the\tholiday\t for\nKalipuja from 11th November to 12th November at the  request\nof the majority of workers.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant,\t according  to the  usual  practice  of\t the\ncompany,  at the beginning of 1966, had published a list  of\nholidays for that year.\t According to this list, the holiday\nfor  Kalipuja was stated to be on Friday the  11th  November\n1966.\tThe workmen in this company were represented by\t two\nUnions-The  Amco  Employees Association'  and  Amco  Shramic\nSangha' of which the Sangha represented the majority of\t the\nworkmen of this company.\nOn November 8, 1966, the appellant notified that the factory\nwill  remain closed for Kalipuja on 11th November 1966.\t  On\n10th  November\t1966, the General Secretary  of\t the  Sangha\nwrote  a  letter  to  the Factory  Manager  of\tthe  Company\nrequesting  him\t to close the factory on Saturday  the\t12th\nNovember,  1966\t on  account of\t Kalipuja  instead  of\t11th\nNovember, 1966.\t A further request was made that the factory\nmay be kept working on Friday in accordance with the timings\nof the company and stated in his letter that if the  request\nfor  change in the holiday is not acceptable a large  number\nof workmen will not be attending on Saturday and there\twill\nbe heavy loss of production.  On receipt of this letter, the\nappellant  put up a notice the same day that in response  to\nthe request of the Sangha the factory will remain closed  on\nSaturday the 12th November instead of Friday the 11th.\nAfter  the company's notice regarding the change of  holiday\nfor  Kalipuia, the other Union, the Association on the\tsame\nday addressed a letter to the Management that the change of\nholiday for Kalipuja was not justified and that the original\ndate should be allowed to stand.  The company did not accede\nto  this  request  and\tas a  result  most  of\tthe  workmen\nbelonging to the Association did not attend work on November\n11,  1966.   The  wages for the day were  not  paid  by\t the\nappellant to those workmen who were absent on that day.\nAfter  about  a year, the respondent& filed  an\t application\nbefore\tthe  Labour  Court under s. 33-A of  the  Act.\t The\ngrievance of these workmen was that there was an  industrial\ndispute\t pending  at  the relevant  time  and  that  without\ncomplying  with\t the  provisions of s. 33 and  s.  9-A,\t the\nemployer  had  altered\tthe  condition\tof  the\t service  by\nchanging the-date of the holiday for Kalipuja.\tAccording to\nthe respondents, one day holiday for Kalipuja was allowed to\nthem  for  a  number  of years and  that  it  had  become  a\ncondition  of service.\tThe standing orders of\tthe  company\ndid  not  give\tany power to the appellant  to\tchange\tthe,\nholiday for Kalipuja, and therefore s. 33 (2) (a) of the Act\nwas  violated.\t According to them, any change of  date\t can\nonly  be affected in accordance with s. 9-A.  Therefore\t the\nemployer  in  declaring\t 12th  November\t as  a\tholiday\t and\nrefusing to pay wages for 11 November 1966 acted  illegally.\nThe management on the other hand, Contested the\t application\non  the\t ground\t that  there  had  been\t no  change  in\t the\nconditions  of service of the workmen.\tThe change was\tmade\nto suit the convenience of the workmen themselves and it was\ndone for their benefit.\nThe  Labour  Court accepted the plea of the  management\t but\nheld that as the holiday has been originally fixed for\t11th\nbut later changed to 12th amounted to\ta  change   in\t the\ncondition  of service and therefore, the procedure under  s.\n9-A  had not been followed.  As the said procedure  had\t not\nbeen followed by    the\t appellant,  the Labour\t Court\theld\nthat there had been it violation of s.\t33 read with s.\t 9-A\nof the Act and he granted the reliefs accordingly.  Allowing\nthe appeal,\n117\nHELD : (i) The alteration of the date regarding the  holiday\nfor  Kalipuja  from  11th to 12th November  1966  cannot  be\nconsidered to be an alteration in the conditions of service.\nThe workmen may be entailed to have a holiday for' Kalipuja.\nBut  on what particular date Kalipuja falls or it  is  being\nobserved and a holiday is to be declared, is a matter to  be\ndecided by the management in consultation with the workmen..\nIf a large body of the workmen require a change in the\tdate\nof the holiday on the ground that the festival was not being\nobserved  on  the day originally fixed. and  the  management\nchanged\t the  date, it cannot be stated that  there  was  an\nalteration  in the conditions of service.  The workmen\twere\nno,  being  deprived of a holiday at all for  Kalipuja.\t  In\nfact, they had got it on the 12th November 1966. [120D]\nThe Workmen of M\/s. Sur Iron & Steel Company Private Ltd. v.\nM\/s. Sur Iron & Steel Co. Private Ltd.<\/a> [1971] 1 L.L.J.\t570,\nreferred to.\n(ii)Even assuming that alteration of the date of the holiday\nfor Kalipuja will amount to a condition of service there  is\nno question in the present case of a contravention. of s.  9\nwhen  the majority of the workmen themselves  requested\t the\nemployer  to make the alteration.  The employer\t was  within\nits rights under s. 33(2). Further. the evidence on the side\nof   the  respondents  showed  that  the  workmen   actually\ncelebrated Kalipuja on the 12th November which was  declared\nto  be a holiday.  Therefore, the application filed  by\t the\nworkmen\t  before  the  Labour  Court  under  s.\t  33-A\t was\nmisconceived. [121E]\nM\/s.  Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Workmen and Ors.<\/a>  [1972]\n11 L.L.J. 259, discussed and distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2433 of 1968.
\nAppeal by special leave from the Award dated August 9,\t1968
\nof the Labour Court Gauhati in Case No. 6 of 1968  published
\nin the Assam Gazette dated the 4th September 1968.
\nB.   Sen, G. Mukhuty and D. N. Gupta, for the Appellant.
\nD.   L. Sen Gupta and S. K. Nandy, for the respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the, Court was delivered by
\nVAIDIALINGAM,  J.  In  this appeal, by\tspecial\t leave,\t the
\nquestion  that\tarises\tfor  consideration  is\twhether\t the
\nappellant  has\tcontravened section 9-D\t of  the  Industrial
\nDisputes  Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the  Act),
\nwhen  at  the  request of the majority of  the\tworkmen\t the
\nholiday\t for Diwali was changed from 11th November, 1966  to
\nthe  ,next  day.  According to the usual  practice,  at\t the
\ncommencement of the year 1966, the appellant had published a
\nlist of holidays for that year.\t According to this list, the
\nholiday\t for Kali Puja was stated to be on Friday, the\t11th
\nNovember, 1966.\t On November 5, 1966, the appellant notified
\nthat the factory will remain closed for Kali Puja on Friday,
\nthe 11th November,’1966.  This notification was only on\t the
\nbasis  of  the list of holidays referred  to  earlier.\t The
\nworkmen\t in this company were represented by two unions\t (1)
\nAmco  Employees Association (hereinafter referred to as\t the
\nAssociation)   and  (2)\t Amco  Sramik  Sangha\t(hereinafter
\nreferred to as the Sangh ). There is no controversy that the
\nSangha\trepresented  the  majority of the  workmen  of\tthis
\ncompany.\n<\/p>\n
On  November 10, 1966, the General Secretary of\t the  Sangha
\nwrote  a  letter  to the factory Manager  of  the  appellant
\nrequesting  him to close the factory on Saturday,  the\t12th
\nNovember, 1966, on account of Kali Puja instead of the\t11th
\ninstant as already notified by the com-\n<\/p>\n
118<\/span><\/p>\n
pany  on  November 5, 1966.  A further request was  made  in
\nthis letter that the factory may be kept working on  Friday,
\nthe 11th November, in accordance with the timings  mentioned
\ntherein.   The\tGeneral\t Secretary further  stated  in\tthis
\nletter\tthat if the request of change in the holiday is\t not
\naccepted, a large number of workmen will not be attending on
\nSaturday, the 12th November, which will result in heavy loss
\nof production.\tOn receipt of this letter, the appellant put
\nup a notice the same ‘day that in response to the request of
\nthe Sangha, the factory will remain- closed for Kali Puja on
\nSaturday, the 12th November, instead of Friday, the 11th, as
\npreviously  notified.  This notice further stated  that\t the
\nfactory will remain open on Friday, the 11th November during
\nthe  hours mentioned therein.  Quite naturally, this  notice
\ncancelled the previous notice dated November 5, 1966.
\nAfter  the company’s notice regarding the change of  holiday
\nfor Diwali was put up on the notice-board, the\tAssociation,
\non  the same day (November 10, 1966), addressed a letter  to
\nthe management that the change of holiday for Diwali was not
\njustified  and\tthat  the  date\t originally  declared  as  a
\nholiday,  namely,  the 11th November, should be\t allowed  to
\nstand.\tThe company obviously did not accede to this request
\nof the Association with the result that most of the  workmen
\nattached  to  the  association did not\tattend\tto  work  on
\nNovember 11, 1966.  The wages for that day were not paid  by
\nthe appellant to those workmen on the ground that they\twere
\nabsent from duty.\n<\/p>\n
Nearly a year later on December 30, 1967, the respondents in
\nthis  appeal, 83 in number, filed an application before\t the
\nLabour\tCourt, Gauhati, under section 33-A of the Act.\t The
\ngrievance  of these workmen appears to be that there was  an
\nindustrial  dispute  pending at the relevant time  and\tthat
\nwithout\t complying  with the provisions of section  33,\t and
\nwithout\t conforming  to the provisions of section  9-A,\t the
\nemployer  had altered the condition of service\tby  changing
\nthe date of the holiday for Diwali.  According to them,\t one
\nday holiday for Kali Puja was being allowed for a number  of
\nyears  and that it has become a condition of  service.\t The
\nnotice\tissued on November 5, 19766, declaring November\t 11,
\n1966,  as  a holiday for Diwali was in conformity  with\t the
\nright of the workmen under the conditions of their  service.
\nThe Standing Orders of the company did not give any power to
\nthe  appellant\tto  change  the\t holiday  for  Diwali\tand,
\ntherefore,  section  3 3 (2) (a) of the Act  does  not\tgive
\npower to the appellant to alter the, said date.\t Any  change
\nof date can only be effected in accordance with section 9-A.
\nAs  that  has not been done, the action of the\temployer  in
\ndeclaring 12th November, 1966, as a holiday and refusing  to
\npay  wages  for\t 11th November,\t 1966,\twere  both  illegal.
\nAccordingly  they proved for directing the appellant to\t pay
\nthem ‘Wages for November 11, 1966, which has been denied  to
\nthem, as their absence on that day was perfectly legal.
\nThe management contested the application on the ground\tthat
\nthere  has  been  no change effected in\t the  conditions  of
\nservice\t of  the workmen by altering the holiday  of  Diwali
\nfrom  November 11, to the next day.  As the holiday  is\t for
\nDiwali\tand  as\t the majority of  the  workmen\tspecifically
\ndesired the holiday on the 12th November the
\n119<\/span>
\nchange\twas  made to suit the convenience  of  the  workmen.
\nEven if the fixation of a holiday is a condition of service,
\nthe  change  has been made for the benefit of  the  workmen.
\nThe  management\t further  pleaded that\tunder  the  Standing
\nOrders\tthey were entitled to fix the holidays and  also  to
\neffect\tany changes therein and, therefore, section  33\t (2)\n<\/p>\n
(a) of the Act gives power to them to effect such a  change,
\nalthough  an  industrial  dispute  was\tthen  pending.\t The
\nmanagement  also cited certain previous instances  when\t the
\nholiday\t for  Holiday  or for Diwali  once  fixed  had\tbeen
\naltered at the request of the workmen.\n<\/p>\n
The  Labour  Court has accepted the plea of  the  management
\nthat  the Sangha represented the majority of the workmen  of
\nthe  appellant.\t  It has further found\tthat  the  appellant
\naltered\t the date from 11th to 12th at the specific  request
\nof  the\t Sangha.   But the Labour Court held  that,  as\t the
\nholiday\t has been originally fixed for the 11th November  by
\nthe notice dated November 5, 1966, on the basis of the\tlist
\nof holidays announced by the company, the alteration of\t the
\nholiday from 11th to 12th November, though at the request of
\nthe  majority  of the workmen, amounted to a change  in\t the
\ncondition  (if\tservice\t and as such,  the  procedure  under
\nsection\t 9-A  should  have  been  followed.   As  the\tsaid
\nprocedure had not been followed by the appellant, the Labour
\nCourt  held  that there has been a violation of\t section  33
\nread with section 9-A of the Act.  In this view, it  granted
\nthe reliefs asked for by the 33 workmen.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. B. Sen, on behalf of the appellant company supported the
\nstand  taken by it before the Labour Court.. He\t urged\tthat
\nthere  is no question of any cancellation of a holiday\tthat
\nthe workmen were entitled to, in which case it may be stated
\nthat  the  condition of service is effected.  On  the  other
\nhand, the workmen did have a holiday for Diwali on the\t12th
\nNovember.   The counsel also referred us to the evidence  on
\nrecord\tto show that on previous occasions such changes\t had
\nbeen effected in the holidays when a request was made by the
\nworkmen\t concerned.  Mr. Sen Gupta, learned counsel for\t the
\nrespondents,  has  adopted the reasons given by\t the  Labour
\nCourt for holding that a change in the condition of  service
\nhas been effected by the appellant.  In particular, Mr.\t Sen
\nGupta  pointed out +hat if the employer wanted to  effect  a
\nchange in the date of the holiday, it should have been\tdone
\nby  the appellant entering into a settlement with the  work-
\nmen, as contemplated by clause (a) of the proviso to section
\n9-A.   The  sum and substance of the arguments\tof  Mr.\t Sen
\nGupta  was that the appellant, having fixed the holiday\t for
\nDiwali as per its previous circular”. had no power to change
\nthe  same oven though a majority of the workmen had  desired
\nthe appellant to do so.\n<\/p>\n
Section 9-A no doubt provides that the conditions of service
\nof  any\t workmen in respect of any matter specified  in\t the
\nFourth\tSchedule  cannot be changed  without  following\t the
\nprocedure indicated therein.  If the alteration of the\tdate
\nof a holiday amount to a change in the Condition of service.
\nit  is\tneedless  to state that the appellant  is  bound  to
\nfollow\tthe Procedure laid down in section 9-A.\t Item  5  of
\nthe  Fourth  Schedule  deals  with  “leave  with  wages\t and
\nholiday”.  There-\n<\/p>\n
120<\/span><\/p>\n
fore,  prima-facie,  if\t a  holiday  has  been\tfixed,\t the
\nmanagement may not have power to totally cancel the same  or
\ndeprive the workmen of such a holiday without conforming  to
\nprovisions  of section 9-A.  In the notice published at\t the
\nbeginning  of the year 1966 regarding the holidays  for\t the
\nsaid  year, the appellant has no doubt stated  that  Friday,
\nthe  11th  November, will be a holiday for Kali\t Puja.\t But
\nthere is a statement in this notice to the effect that\tthis
\nlist  is  subject to modification,  if\tthought\t necessary”.
\nUnder paragraph 6 of the company’s certified Sanding Orders,
\nit is provided that “Notice specifying (a) the days observed
\nby the Factory as holidays and (b) pay days, shall be posted
\nas required by the Factory Act and the payment of wages\t Act
\nrespectively”.\t There\tis no controversy that the  list  of
\nholidays published at the beginning of the year 1966 as well
\nas  the\t circular dated November 5, 1966 are  in  conformity
\nwith  this provision.  Similarly the notice  dated  November
\n10,  1966,  by the management regarding\t the  12th  November
\nbeing  a holiday for Diwali, acceding to the request of\t the
\nworkmen,  must also be considered to satisfy the  provisions
\nof this clause in the Standing Orders.\n<\/p>\n
In  our\t opinion, the alteration of the date  regarding\t the
\nholiday for Diwali, from 1 1 the to the next day, cannot  be
\nconsidered to be an alteration in the conditions of service.
\nThe  workmen may be entitled to have a holiday\tfor  Diwali.
\nBut  on\t what  particular day Diwali Calls or  it  is  being
\nobserved and a holiday is to be declared, is a matter to  be
\ndecided by the management in consultation with the  workmen.
\nIf  a  large body I of the workmen require a change  in\t the
\ndate  of the holiday on the ground that the festival is\t not
\nbeing\tobserved  on  the  day\toriginally  fixed  and\t the
\nmanagement changes the date,, it cannot be stated that there
\nis an alteration in the conditions of service.\tThe  workmen
\nare  not being deprived of a holiday at all for Diwali.\t  In
\nfact they have got it on the 12th November, 1966.
\nIn  The Workmen of M\/S.\t Sur Iron & Steel Co. Pvt.  Ltd.  v.
\nM\/S.  Sur Iron & Steel Co. Pvt.\t Ltd., and<\/a>  another(1),\t the
\nworkmen\t contended  that the change in the  weekly  off-day,
\nfrom   Sunday  to  Saturday,  without  complying  with\t the
\nprovisions of section 9-A, was illegal.\t This Court rejected
\nthat  contention  on  two  grounds that\t (1)  there  was  no
\nspecific  entry in the Fourth Schedule covering a  condition
\nof  service  relating  to  a weekly  off-day  and  (2)\teven
\nassuming that the grant of a weekly off-day falls under item
\n4 of the Fourth Schedule, the State Government had issued  a
\nnotification on April 10, 1962 under section 9,B laying down
\nthat  no notice under section 9-A was required to be  served
\nin  respect of the matters covered by items 4, 6 and  11  of
\nthe said Schedule for a period of three months.\t  Therefore,
\nit  will  be  seen that this decision did  not\texpress\t any
\nopinion on the question whether the alteration of the weekly
\noff-day from Sunday to Saturday, amounts to a change in\t the
\nconditions  of service coming within section 9-A.   In\tfact
\nthe indications in the judgment are that such an  alteration
\nwill not attract section 9-A.\n<\/p>\n
The  decision in M\/s Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.  vs.\t The
\nWorkmen\t and  others<\/a>(2)\t does not advance the  case  of\t the
\nrespondents.  From
\n(1) [1971] (1) LLJ 570.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1972]  11 LLJ. 259.\n<\/p>\n
121<\/span><\/p>\n
the  facts  of that case it is seen that Sunday had  been  a
\nholiday in the factory concerned for a long number of years.
\nThe  company,  for  the\t reasons  stated  in  the  judgment,
\ncancelled  this\t holiday and in turn gave a holiday  in\t the
\nmid-week without following the procedure under section\t9-A.
\nIt  was\t held in the particular circumstances of  that\tcase
\nthat the alteration amounts to a change in the conditions of
\nservice.  It must be noted that the workmen have been having
\nfor a long number of years Sunday as a holiday and that\t may
\nhave  become a condition or their service.  A holiday  on  a
\nSunday can only be on that day and no other day of the\tweek
\ncan be Sunday.\tOn this basis the decision has been rendered
\nholding\t that  canceling,  the\tholiday\t enjoyed  on  Sunday
\namounts, in the circumstances, to a change in the conditions
\nof service.\n<\/p>\n
The  position in the case before. us is entirely  different.
\nThe  fact  is that the workmen have not been deprived  of  a
\nholiday for Diwali.  Even assuming that the workmen have got
\na right to get a holiday for Diwali and that it has become a
\ncondition  of service, in this case the workmen did  have  a
\nholiday for Diwali.  The holiday for the said festival is to
\nbe given on the date when the majority of the workmen  claim
\nthat they are celebrating Diwali.  It has been emphasised in
\nM\/s.   Tata  Iron  and Steel Co. Ltd.  v.  The\tworkmen\t and
\nothers(1) that the real object and purpose of section 9-A is
\nto  afford  an opportunity to the workmen  to  consider\t the
\neffect of a proposed change and. if necessary, to  represent
\ntheir  view  on\t the  proposal.\t  Even\tassuming  that\t the
\nalteration of the date of the holiday for Diwali will amount
\nto  a  condition of service, there is no question,  in\tthis
\ncase,  of a contravention of section 9-A, when the  majority
\nof  the\t workmen themselves requested the employer  to\tmake
\nthe’  alteration.  The employer was within its rights  under
\nsection\t 3  3  (2) (a).\t The evidence on  the  side  of\t the
\nrespondents  shows  that  the  workmen\tactually  celebrated
\nDiwali\t,on  the 12th November, which was declared to  be  a
\nholiday.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the
\napplication  filed  by the workmen before the  Labour  Court under
\n  section 33-A was misconceived.  In the  result,  the
\norder  of the Labour Court is set aside and this  appeal  is
\nallowed.  There will be no order as to ,costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.C.\t\t\t    Appeal allowed.\n(1) 1972 (11) L.L.J. 259.\n122<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Assam Match Company Limited vs Bijoy Lal Sen & Others on 27 April, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2155, 1974 SCR (1) 116 Author: C Vaidyialingam Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A. PETITIONER: ASSAM MATCH COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RESPONDENT: BIJOY LAL SEN & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/04\/1973 BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. GROVER, […]<\/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-83967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAssam Match Company Limited vs Bijoy Lal Sen & Others on 27 April, 1973 - 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\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Assam Match Company Limited vs Bijoy Lal Sen & Others on 27 April, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973\" \/>\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=\"1973-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-29T18:13:00+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Assam Match Company Limited vs Bijoy Lal Sen & Others on 27 April, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-29T18:13:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973\"},\"wordCount\":2457,\"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\\\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973\",\"name\":\"Assam Match Company Limited vs Bijoy Lal Sen & Others on 27 April, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-29T18:13:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Assam Match Company Limited vs Bijoy Lal Sen & Others on 27 April, 1973\"}]},{\"@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":"Assam Match Company Limited vs Bijoy Lal Sen & Others on 27 April, 1973 - 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\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Assam Match Company Limited vs Bijoy Lal Sen & Others on 27 April, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-29T18:13:00+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Assam Match Company Limited vs Bijoy Lal Sen & Others on 27 April, 1973","datePublished":"1973-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-29T18:13:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973"},"wordCount":2457,"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\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973","name":"Assam Match Company Limited vs Bijoy Lal Sen & Others on 27 April, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-29T18:13:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assam-match-company-limited-vs-bijoy-lal-sen-others-on-27-april-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Assam Match Company Limited vs Bijoy Lal Sen & Others on 27 April, 1973"}]},{"@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\/83967","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=83967"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83967\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}