{"id":84084,"date":"1986-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986"},"modified":"2018-04-09T14:52:14","modified_gmt":"2018-04-09T09:22:14","slug":"tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986","title":{"rendered":"Tejinder Singh And Another Etc vs M\/S. Bharat Petroleum &#8230; on 11 September, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tejinder Singh And Another Etc vs M\/S. Bharat Petroleum &#8230; on 11 September, 1986<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR   51, \t\t  1986 SCC  (4) 237<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Rangnath<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Misra Rangnath<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nTEJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT11\/09\/1986\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nPATHAK, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR   51\t\t  1986 SCC  (4) 237\n JT 1986   405\t\t  1986 SCALE  (2)391\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1987 SC1527\t (25)\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of India 1950:\n     Articles  12,  14\t&amp;  32-Retirement  age-58  years\t for\nmanagement staff  and 60  years for  clerical  staff-Whether\ndiscriminatory.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  age\tof  superannuation  of\tthe  clerical  staff\nemployed under the Respondent No. 1 is 60 years while in the\ncase of the management staff the terminal point is 58 years.\nThe officers  of the  management staff\tin  their  petitions\nunder Article  32 alleged  that the  disparity in the age of\nretirement between  two groups\tof employees  gives rise  to\ndiscriminatory treatment.  They also  claim that  in keeping\nwith the  current trend\t in the\t commercial field  such\t age\nshould be fixed at 60.\n     Dismissing the petitions, the Court,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  Classification on  the  basis  of  reasonable\ndifferentia is\ta  well\t known\tbasis.\tClerical  staff\t and\nofficers  of   the  management\t staff\tbelong\tto  separate\nclassifications. Therefore,  the petitioners, in the fact of\nthe case,  are not  entitled to seek support from Article 14\nfor their claim. [741 F]\n     2.\t The  claim  of\t the  clerical\tstaff  arose  in  an\nindustrial dispute.  The scope\tof such adjudication is wide\nand broad-based.  The Tribunal has expansive jurisdiction to\nexercise when  a reference  is made  to it.  This  Court  in\nappeal\tagainst\t  the  Award   was   exercising\t  the\tsame\njurisdiction in\t that case.  It would not be appropriate for\nthis Court  to exercise that Jurisdiction in dealing with an\napplication  under  Article  32\t of  the  Constitution.\t The\nofficers of the management staff are not workmen. [741 G-H]\n     3. The  petitioners have  not brought  before the Court\nall the mate-\n740\nrial relevant  to the  making of  a claim as made from which\nsupport could  be had. On the other hand, the Respondent No.\n1 in  its affidavit in opposition has placed various aspects\nto justify  fixation and  continuation of the present age of\nretirement. [742 E-F]\n     4. In  keeping with  the trend of the times, a claim of\nthe type  as laid in the instant applications may have to be\nexamined. However,  that adjudication will be required to be\nmade on\t more cogent  and appropriate  material than now. If\nthis Court is moved, it has then to be considered whether an\napplication under  Article 32  is the  proper remedy for it.\nHowever, the  petitioners are not entitled to their claim in\nthese applications. [742 F-G]\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/1602162\/\">Som Prakash  Rekhi v.  Union of  India &amp; Anr.,<\/a> [1981] 2\nSCR 111, followed.\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/163753\/\">Workmen  of   the\tBharat\tPetroleum  Corporation\tLtd.\n(Refining Division)  Bombay v.\tBharat Petroleum Corporation\nLtd. and<\/a>  another, [1984]  1 SCR  251, <a href=\"\/doc\/1083046\/\">M\/s.  British  Paints\n(India) Ltd.  v. Its  Workmen,<\/a> [1966]  2 SCR  523  and\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1561292\/\">G.M.\nTalang and  others v.  Shaw Wallace and Co. &amp; Anr.,<\/a> [1964] 7\nSCR 424, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 15466\n<\/p>\n<p>-67 of 1984 Etc.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)<br \/>\n     M.K. Ramamurthi,  P. Gaur\tand Jitendra  Sharma for the<br \/>\nPetitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>     G.B. Pai,\tO.C. Mathur, Miss Deepa Sabra and Mrs. Meera<br \/>\nMathur for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     RANGANATH\tMISRA,\t J.  All  these\t applications  under<br \/>\nArticle 32  of the  Constitution are  by officers called the<br \/>\nManagement Staff  employed under  the Respondent  No. 1\t and<br \/>\nchallenge in  all the  Writ  Petitions\tis  to\tthe  age  of<br \/>\nsuperannuation at  58 years.  The principal ground of attack<br \/>\nis discrimination  between the\tclerical staff\tfor whom the<br \/>\nage of\tretirement is  60 years\t and the management staff in<br \/>\nwhose case  such terminal  point is 58 years. It is also the<br \/>\nclaim of the petition<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">741<\/span><br \/>\ners that in keeping with the current trend in the commercial<br \/>\nfield such age should be fixed at 60.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Each of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 15466 and<br \/>\n15467 of  1984 and  2745 of 1985 is a recent recruit for the<br \/>\nmanagement staff  while\t each  of  the\tpetitioners  in\t the<br \/>\nremaining cases\t was an\t employee under the Burmah Shell oil<br \/>\nStorage and  Distributing Company of India Limited and after<br \/>\nthe take  over\tof  that  Company  under  the  Burmah  Shell<br \/>\n(Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976, has become<br \/>\nan officer of respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/1602162\/\">In Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India &amp; Anr.,<\/a> [1981] 2<br \/>\nSCR 111\t this Court  has held Respondent No. 1 to be &#8220;State&#8221;<br \/>\nwithin the  meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. There<br \/>\nhas,  therefore,   been\t no   dispute  before  us  that\t the<br \/>\npetitioners would  be entitled\tto invoke  the protection of<br \/>\nArticle 14 in case there indeed be any discrimination.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This  Court   in  <a href=\"\/doc\/163753\/\">Workmen\t of  the   Bharat  Petroleum<br \/>\nCorporation  Ltd.   (Refining  Division)  Bombay  v.  Bharat<br \/>\nPetroleum Corporation  Ltd. and<\/a>\t another, [1984]  1 SCR\t 251<br \/>\ndirected the  retirement age  of the  clerical staff  of the<br \/>\nRefinery Division  of Respondent  No. 1\t to be\tfixed at  60<br \/>\nyears. Petitioners  have contended that the disparity in the<br \/>\nage of retirement between two groups of employees gives rise<br \/>\nto discriminatory  treatment. This  stand is not tenable for<br \/>\nmore than  one reason.\tClerical staff\tand officers  of the<br \/>\nmanagement staff  belong to  separate classifications and no<br \/>\nargument is necessary in support of it. Petitioners have not<br \/>\ncontended and  perhaps could  not legitimately contend, that<br \/>\nthe two\t classes of  officers stand at par. In the Workmen&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase itself,  this Court  did  not  extend  the\t benefit  of<br \/>\nsuperannuation at  the age  of 60  to all clerical staff but<br \/>\nlimited the  same to  that category  of employees working in<br \/>\nthe Refinery  Division, Bombay.\t Classification on the basis<br \/>\nof reasonable  differentia is  a well-known basis and we are<br \/>\nof the\tview that  the petitioners  are not  entitled in the<br \/>\nfacts of  the case to seek support from Article 14 for their<br \/>\nclaim.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The claim\tof the clerical staff arose in an industrial<br \/>\ndispute. The  scope of\tsuch an\t adjudication  is  wide\t and<br \/>\nbroad-based. The  Tribunal  has\t expansive  jurisdiction  to<br \/>\nexercise when  a reference  is made  to it.  This  court  in<br \/>\nappeal\tagainst\t  the  Award   was   exercising\t  the\tsame<br \/>\njurisdiction in\t that case.  We do  not think,\tit would  be<br \/>\nappropriate for\t this Court to exercise that jurisdiction in<br \/>\ndealing\t with\tan  application\t under\tArticle\t 32  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution. It  must also  be remembered  that officers of<br \/>\nthe management staff are not workmen.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">742<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     It is  true that  this Court  in Workmen  of the Bharat<br \/>\nPetroleum  Corporation\t Ltd.  (Refining  Division)  Bombay,<br \/>\n[1984]\t1   SCR\t 251   quoted  with   approval\tits  earlier<br \/>\nobservations in\t <a href=\"\/doc\/1083046\/\">M\/s. British  Paints (India)  Ltd.  v.\t Its<br \/>\nWorkmen,<\/a> [1966] 2 SCR 523 where it was said:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;But time  in our opinion has now come considering<br \/>\n\t  the improvement  in the  standard  of\t health\t and<br \/>\n\t  increase in  longevity in  this country during the<br \/>\n\t  last fifty years that the age of retirement should<br \/>\n\t  be fixed  at a  higher level, and we consider that<br \/>\n\t  generally speaking  in the  present  circumstances<br \/>\n\t  fixing the  age of retirement at 60 years would be<br \/>\n\t  fair\tand   proper,  unless\tthere  are   special<br \/>\n\t  circumstances justifying  fixation of\t a lower age<br \/>\n\t  of retirement.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Again in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1561292\/\">G.M. Talang  and others  v. Shaw Wallace and Co. &amp;<br \/>\nAnr.,<\/a> [1964]  7 SCR 424 this Court referred to the Report of<br \/>\nthe Norms Committee where it was said:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t   &#8220;After taking into consideration the views of the<br \/>\n\t  earlier Committees and Commissions including those<br \/>\n\t  of the  Second Pay  Commission the report of which<br \/>\n\t  has been  released  recently,\t we  feel  that\t the<br \/>\n\t  retirement  age  for\tworkmen\t in  all  industries<br \/>\n\t  should be fixed at 60.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>A distinction in the treatment on the point in issue between<br \/>\nworkmen and  officers is  clearly  discernible\tin  judicial<br \/>\nthinking as  also expert  opinion. Besides,  the petitioners<br \/>\nhave not  brought before the Court all the material relevant<br \/>\nto the making of a claim as made from which support could be<br \/>\nhad. On\t the  other  hand,  the\t Respondent  No.  1  in\t its<br \/>\naffidavit  in  opposition  has\tplaced\tvarious\t aspects  to<br \/>\njustify fixation  and continuation  of the  present  age  of<br \/>\nretirement. It\tmay be\tthat some  day, in  keeping with the<br \/>\ntrend of  the times,  a claim  of the  type as laid in these<br \/>\napplications may nave to be examined. We, however, hope that<br \/>\nadjudication will  be required to be made on more cogent and<br \/>\nappropriate material  than now.\t If this  Court is moved, it<br \/>\nhas then  to be\t considered  whether  an  application  under<br \/>\nArticle 32  is the proper remedy for it. We are, however, of<br \/>\nthe view  that the  petitioners are  not entitled  to  their<br \/>\nclaim  in   these  applications.   The\tWrit  Petitions\t are<br \/>\ndismissed but without costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>A.P.J.\t\t\t\t\tPetitions dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">743<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Tejinder Singh And Another Etc vs M\/S. Bharat Petroleum &#8230; on 11 September, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 51, 1986 SCC (4) 237 Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath PETITIONER: TEJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT11\/09\/1986 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84084","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tejinder Singh And Another Etc vs M\/S. Bharat Petroleum ... on 11 September, 1986 - 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\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tejinder Singh And Another Etc vs M\/S. Bharat Petroleum ... on 11 September, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986\" \/>\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=\"1986-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-09T09:22:14+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tejinder Singh And Another Etc vs M\\\/S. Bharat Petroleum &#8230; on 11 September, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-09T09:22:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986\"},\"wordCount\":943,\"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\\\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986\",\"name\":\"Tejinder Singh And Another Etc vs M\\\/S. Bharat Petroleum ... on 11 September, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-09T09:22:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tejinder Singh And Another Etc vs M\\\/S. Bharat Petroleum &#8230; on 11 September, 1986\"}]},{\"@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":"Tejinder Singh And Another Etc vs M\/S. Bharat Petroleum ... on 11 September, 1986 - 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\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tejinder Singh And Another Etc vs M\/S. Bharat Petroleum ... on 11 September, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-09T09:22:14+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tejinder Singh And Another Etc vs M\/S. Bharat Petroleum &#8230; on 11 September, 1986","datePublished":"1986-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-09T09:22:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986"},"wordCount":943,"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\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986","name":"Tejinder Singh And Another Etc vs M\/S. Bharat Petroleum ... on 11 September, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-09T09:22:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-and-another-etc-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-11-september-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tejinder Singh And Another Etc vs M\/S. Bharat Petroleum &#8230; on 11 September, 1986"}]},{"@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\/84084","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=84084"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84084\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84084"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84084"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84084"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}