{"id":84648,"date":"2007-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007"},"modified":"2014-06-13T11:14:54","modified_gmt":"2014-06-13T05:44:54","slug":"the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Thirumagal Mills Ltd vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of … on 20 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Thirumagal Mills Ltd vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of … on 20 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                     DATED : 20\/11\/2007\n\n                            CORAM\n\n          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\n                     W.P. No.4222 of 2007\n                             AND\n                   MP. Nos.1 and 2 of 2007\n\n\n\nThe Thirumagal Mills Ltd.\nPost Box No.1\nKatpadi Road\nGudiyattam 632 602.         \t\t\t..Petitioner\n\n\n\tVs\n\n\n1.  The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories\n    Division II\n    Vellore.\n\n2.  A.B.Babu             \t\t\t..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n       Writ   petition  filed  under  Article  226  of   the\n\nConstitution  of India praying for a writ of  certiorari  to\n\ncall for the records of the order of the first respondent in\n\nProceedings  No.m\/5062\/2006 dated 1.12.2006  and  quash  the\n\nsame.\n\n\n\n\n          For Petitioner      :  Mr.R.Parthiban\n\n          For Respondents     :  Mr.S.Gopinathan, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1\n                                 Mr.S.T.Varatharajulu for R2\n\n\n\n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      Challenge  is made to an order of the first respondent<\/p>\n
made  in Proceedings No.m\/5062\/2006 dated 1.12.2006, by  way<\/p>\n
of this writ petition for a writ of certiorari.<\/p>\n
      2.The  second  respondent herein made  an  application<\/p>\n
before   the  first  respondent  namely  the  Deputy   Chief<\/p>\n
Inspector  of Factories, Division II, Vellore, stating  that<\/p>\n
he  has  got to be declared as a permanent employee  of  the<\/p>\n
writ  petitioner Company.  On enquiry, the first  respondent<\/p>\n
passed  an  order  declaring that he has acquired  permanent<\/p>\n
status, which is the subject matter of challenge before this<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     3.The affidavit in support of the writ petition and the<\/p>\n
affidavit  in support of the vacate stay petition  filed  by<\/p>\n
the  second  respondent, are perused.  The Court  heard  the<\/p>\n
learned Counsel on either side.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.The  case of the second respondent while he made  an<\/p>\n
application  for permanent status, was that  he  joined  the<\/p>\n
writ petitioner establishment in the year 1995; that he  was<\/p>\n
working  continuously  as  an employee  in  Quality  Control<\/p>\n
Section;  that  in  24  calendar months  from  24.2.1995  to<\/p>\n
23.2.1997  he worked for 628 days; that number of  employees<\/p>\n
who  joined with him, have been regularized long back;  but,<\/p>\n
he  was  not given so; and that under the circumstances,  it<\/p>\n
became  necessary that a direction has got to be  issued  to<\/p>\n
the management to regularize his services.<\/p>\n
      5.The  application was resisted by the writ petitioner<\/p>\n
company  stating that the application could not be sustained<\/p>\n
in  view  of  the  provisions of the Tamil  Nadu  Industrial<\/p>\n
Establishments (conferment of permanent status)  Act,  1981;<\/p>\n
that  he joined the petitioner company only as an apprentice<\/p>\n
in the month of February 1995; that an apprentice was only a<\/p>\n
learner who was given nominal allowance during the period of<\/p>\n
his learning; that he was never an employee or recognized as<\/p>\n
an  employee at any point of time; that he has also absented<\/p>\n
himself from duty for a longtime; that pursuant thereto, his<\/p>\n
services  were  also terminated; that since he  was  not  an<\/p>\n
employee,  he  should  not be given  permanent  status,  and<\/p>\n
hence, the application was to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
      6.After making an enquiry and in appraisement  of  the<\/p>\n
materials  available, the application  was  ordered  by  the<\/p>\n
lower  authority  which  the petitioner  company  challenged<\/p>\n
before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.In support of the writ petition, the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
for  the  petitioner would submit that the second respondent<\/p>\n
was  only an apprentice; that even in the application  given<\/p>\n
by  him, he has put his designation only as apprentice; that<\/p>\n
as  per  the Standing Orders, he has also been certified  as<\/p>\n
apprentice;   that   at  no  stretch  of  imagination,   the<\/p>\n
apprentices  could be considered as employees;  that  it  is<\/p>\n
also  made clear in so may labour enactments; that the Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu   Industrial  Establishment  (Conferment  of  Permanent<\/p>\n
Status  to Workmen) Act, 1981, defines a workman as a person<\/p>\n
employed  in any industrial establishment to do any  skilled<\/p>\n
or  unskilled,  manual, supervisory, technical  or  clerical<\/p>\n
work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment  be<\/p>\n
expressed or implied, but does not include any such  person;<\/p>\n
that  in  the  instant case, he was only an apprentice  when<\/p>\n
joined  the  service; that he continued to be  so  till  his<\/p>\n
services were terminated; that it is also pertinent to point<\/p>\n
out  that due to the long absence and that too, even without<\/p>\n
any  permission or leave, his services were terminated; that<\/p>\n
he  has  also  challenged the same before the Labour  Court;<\/p>\n
that the proceedings were also pending; that since he joined<\/p>\n
only as apprentice, in view of the provisions of the Act, he<\/p>\n
cannot be conferred as a permanent employee; that the  lower<\/p>\n
authority  has neither considered the position both  factual<\/p>\n
and  legal, but has ordered the application, and  hence,  it<\/p>\n
has got to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      8.In  support of his contentions, the learned  Counsel<\/p>\n
for  the  petitioner  relied on a  decision  of  this  Court<\/p>\n
reported  in  1985  II-LLJ 376 (METAL POWDER  CO.  LTD.  AND<\/p>\n
ANOTHER V. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU AND ANOTHER).<\/p>\n
      9.In answer to the above, the learned Counsel for  the<\/p>\n
second  respondent would submit that it is  not  correct  to<\/p>\n
state  that  the second respondent joined as an  apprentice;<\/p>\n
that it is true that in the application, his designation  is<\/p>\n
shown as apprentice; but, the very application would clearly<\/p>\n
reveal that he is eligible for bonus, medical benefit namely<\/p>\n
ESI, P.F. and gratuity; that needless to say that as far  as<\/p>\n
the  apprentice  is concerned, he is not  eligible  for  all<\/p>\n
those  benefits;  that though his designation  is  shown  as<\/p>\n
apprentice, he was never treated as apprentice; but, he  was<\/p>\n
working  as  Skilled  Supervisor  in  the  “Quality  Control<\/p>\n
Section;  that  apart from that, he was  working  from  1995<\/p>\n
onwards;  that  even as per the provisions  of  the  Act,  a<\/p>\n
person could be allowed to do skilled work for one year  and<\/p>\n
to  do  unskilled work for three years; that for  more  than<\/p>\n
this  period, a person cannot be kept as an apprentice; that<\/p>\n
in the instant case, he has been working there for more than<\/p>\n
a  decade; that under the circumstances, it would be  futile<\/p>\n
on  the part of the petitioner to state that he was only  an<\/p>\n
apprentice   and  not  a  permanent  employee;  that   added<\/p>\n
circumstance  is  the  termination of his  services  by  the<\/p>\n
management;  that this was adding factor in  favour  of  the<\/p>\n
second  respondent;  that in such circumstances,  the  lower<\/p>\n
authority  was perfectly correct in giving permanent  status<\/p>\n
to  him,  and  hence,  the  writ  petition  has  got  to  be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      10.The  Court  paid its anxious consideration  on  the<\/p>\n
submissions made, and is of the considered opinion that  the<\/p>\n
writ petition does not carry any merit whatsoever.  The only<\/p>\n
question  that was posed before the authority  below  namely<\/p>\n
the first respondent, was that whether the second respondent<\/p>\n
could  be given the status of permanent employee or not  so.<\/p>\n
Concededly, the second respondent joined the service of  the<\/p>\n
writ  petitioner company in 1995, and he was there for  more<\/p>\n
than 10 years.  The contention put forth by the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
side  that  he  is  not a permanent employee,  but  only  an<\/p>\n
apprentice,  has got to be discarded for more  reasons  than<\/p>\n
one.   Admittedly, he has been in service for  the  past  10<\/p>\n
years.   The  only material available for the petitioner  to<\/p>\n
state  that  he  was only an apprentice is  the  application<\/p>\n
wherein his designation is found as apprentice. But,  it  is<\/p>\n
pertinent to point out that he has been in service for  more<\/p>\n
than  10  years.  Even as per the provisions of the  Act,  a<\/p>\n
person can be kept as an apprentice in a skilled labour  for<\/p>\n
a  period  of  one year and in the unskilled  labour  for  a<\/p>\n
period  of  three years.  But, in this case,  there  was  no<\/p>\n
justification  for the petitioner company to keep  a  person<\/p>\n
like  the second respondent, as an apprentice for more  than<\/p>\n
10  years, and hence, the circumstances warranted for making<\/p>\n
a  comment by the lower authority as unfair labour practice.<\/p>\n
Even  from the application now relied on by the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
side,  it  would  be quite clear that he  was  eligible  for<\/p>\n
bonus,  medical benefit, PF, etc.  Needless to say  that  an<\/p>\n
apprentice is not entitled for those benefits.<\/p>\n
     11.Adding circumstance in the instant case was that the<\/p>\n
petitioner  company has terminated his services due  to  his<\/p>\n
long  absence.  In the case of apprentices, no  question  of<\/p>\n
termination of service would arise. The contention put forth<\/p>\n
by  the  learned Counsel for the petitioner  that  a  person<\/p>\n
whose services has been terminated, cannot ask for permanent<\/p>\n
status  cannot be countenanced.  An employee whose  services<\/p>\n
was  terminated cannot maintain an application for permanent<\/p>\n
status  before  the concerned authority after  an  order  of<\/p>\n
dismissal  was made.  But, in the instant case, pending  the<\/p>\n
application for permanent status, the services of the second<\/p>\n
respondent was terminated by the petitioner company.   Under<\/p>\n
the  circumstances, such contention cannot be  countenanced.<\/p>\n
Apart  from  this, the termination of the  services  of  the<\/p>\n
second  respondent by the petitioner would clearly  indicate<\/p>\n
that  he  was  an employee.  Had he not been an employee  as<\/p>\n
contended  by the petitioner’s side, there was  no  need  or<\/p>\n
necessity for terminating his services.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12.Added further, in the instant case, the application<\/p>\n
made  by the second respondent seeking for permanent status,<\/p>\n
was  pending before the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories.<\/p>\n
Pending  the same, his services was terminated.  Challenging<\/p>\n
the  termination, another industrial dispute has been raised<\/p>\n
before the Labour Court.  Those proceedings are separate and<\/p>\n
independent,  and  one has nothing to  do  with  the  other.<\/p>\n
Thus,  it  would be quite clear that he was only a permanent<\/p>\n
employee  and  not  an  apprentice  as  contended   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s  side.  The order of the authority  below  does<\/p>\n
not require any interference.  Hence, this writ petition  is<\/p>\n
dismissed.  No costs.  Consequently, connected MPs are  also<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
nsv<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories
\n  \tDivision II
\n  \tVellore.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Thirumagal Mills Ltd vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of … on 20 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20\/11\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM W.P. No.4222 of 2007 AND MP. Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 The Thirumagal Mills Ltd. Post Box No.1 Katpadi Road Gudiyattam […]<\/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-84648","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Thirumagal Mills Ltd vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of ... on 20 November, 2007 - 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\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Thirumagal Mills Ltd vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of ... on 20 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-13T05:44:54+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Thirumagal Mills Ltd vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of … on 20 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-13T05:44:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1488,\"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\\\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007\",\"name\":\"The Thirumagal Mills Ltd vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of ... on 20 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-13T05:44:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Thirumagal Mills Ltd vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of … on 20 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"The Thirumagal Mills Ltd vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of ... on 20 November, 2007 - 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\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Thirumagal Mills Ltd vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of ... on 20 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-13T05:44:54+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Thirumagal Mills Ltd vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of … on 20 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-13T05:44:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007"},"wordCount":1488,"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\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007","name":"The Thirumagal Mills Ltd vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of ... on 20 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-13T05:44:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-thirumagal-mills-ltd-vs-the-deputy-chief-inspector-of-on-20-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Thirumagal Mills Ltd vs The Deputy Chief Inspector Of … on 20 November, 2007"}]},{"@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\/84648","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=84648"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84648\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84648"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84648"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84648"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}