{"id":85,"date":"2008-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-04-27T21:57:32","modified_gmt":"2016-04-27T16:27:32","slug":"divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Bansi & Another on 26 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Divisional Forest Officer vs Bansi & Another on 26 November, 2008<\/div>\n
C.W.P. No.17851 of 2007                                               -1-\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                      AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                                 C.W.P. No.17851 of 2007\n                                                 Decided on : 26-11-2008\n\nDivisional Forest Officer\n                                                               ....Petitioner\n                     VERSUS\n\nBansi & another\n                                                             ....Respondents<\/pre>\n
CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.\n<\/p>\n
       HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH.\n<\/p>\n
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?\n<\/p>\n
                     -.-\n<\/p>\n
Present:- Mr. Sunil Nehra, Addl. A.G., Haryana
\n          for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1.<\/p>\n
HEMANT GUPTA, J<\/p>\n
          The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award passed<\/p>\n
by the Labour Court on 05.06.2006 (Annexure P-5), whereby an Industrial<\/p>\n
Dispute raised by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the<\/p>\n
workman”) was answered in favour of the workman and the workman has<\/p>\n
been ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and other<\/p>\n
consequential benefits including 50% back wages from the date of issuance<\/p>\n
of demand notice till the date of publication of the Award and full wages<\/p>\n
thereafter till reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n
          It is the case of the workman that he was engaged as a Beldar<\/p>\n
w.e.f. December, 1992 on daily wage basis and continued to work till<\/p>\n
26.8.2000. The workman claims to have worked for 240 days in a year
\n C.W.P. No.17851 of 2007                                                -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
preceding the date of termination. It is alleged that his services have been<\/p>\n
terminated on 27.8.2000 without complying with the provisions of Section<\/p>\n
25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) and also the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 25-G of the Act has been violated, as the Management<\/p>\n
has retained persons junior to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
          The stand of the Management was that the workman was engaged<\/p>\n
to carry out plantation work which is of seasonal nature. It was denied that<\/p>\n
the workman has worked for 240 days in a calendar year.<\/p>\n
          The learned Labour Court answered reference in favour of the<\/p>\n
workman by raising adverse inference against the Management for not<\/p>\n
producing the record of the engagement of the workman. It was found that<\/p>\n
though the Management witness Dalip Singh, Range Forest Officer, MW-1,<\/p>\n
has stated in the cross-examination that he has seen the original muster rolls<\/p>\n
from July, 1993 to August, 2000 before appearing as a witness. But, still he<\/p>\n
has not produced the records. The learned Labour Court has returned a<\/p>\n
finding that the workman has worked for more than 240 days preceding one<\/p>\n
year from the date of termination.\n<\/p>\n
          Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied placed upon a<\/p>\n
decision of the Supreme Court in cases reported as Ghaziabad<\/p>\n
Development Authority & another Vs. Ashok Kumar & another, 2008<\/p>\n
(4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula,<\/a><\/p>\n
(2008) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration Vs. Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 SCC<\/p>\n
748, Utrranchal Forest Development Corpn. Vs. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 2<\/p>\n
SCC (L&S) 813, State of M.P. And others Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma,<\/p>\n
(2007) 1 SCC 575, to contend that the post under the State are required to
\n C.W.P. No.17851 of 2007                                               -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
be filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by inviting applications<\/p>\n
from all eligible candidates. It is contended that the respondent-workman<\/p>\n
was engaged on daily wages without following the rules and principles of<\/p>\n
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, therefore, even if the workman has<\/p>\n
completed 240 days of service, the said workman is not entitled to be<\/p>\n
reinstated and also for the grant of back wages. In M.P. Administration’s<\/p>\n
case (supra), the Court held to the following effect:-<\/p>\n
          6.    “The question, however, which arises for consideration is as
\n          to whether in a situation of this nature, the learned Single Judge
\n          and consequently the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court
\n          should have directed reinstatement of the respondent with full
\n          back wages. Whereas at one point of time, such a relief used to be
\n          automatically granted, but keeping in view several other factors
\n          and in particular the doctrine of public employment and
\n          involvement of the public money, a change in the said trend is
\n          now found in the recent decisions of this Court. This Court in a
\n          large number of decisions in the matter of grant of relief of the
\n          kind distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a
\n          post and a permanent employee. It may be that the definition of
\n          “workman” as contained in Section 2(s) of the Act is wide and
\n          takes within its embrace all categories of workmen specified
\n          therein, but the same would not mean that even for the purpose of
\n          grant of relief in an industrial dispute referred for adjudication,
\n          application of constitutional scheme of equality adumbrated under
\n          Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in the light of a
\n          decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Secy., State of
\n          Karnataka v. Umadevi and<\/a> other relevant factors pointed out by
\n          the Court in a catena of decisions shall not be taken into
\n          consideration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          7.    The nature of appointment, whether there existed any
\n          sanctioned post or whether the officer concerned had any
\n C.W.P. No.17851 of 2007                                                 -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
           authority to make appointment are relevant factors.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The said observations are in the context of engagement of a<\/p>\n
workman engaged on temporary basis from time to time. It was held that<\/p>\n
the Industrial Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction under Section<\/p>\n
11A of the Act, when it directs the amount of compensation to be paid to the<\/p>\n
workman.\n<\/p>\n
           In    Mahboob Deepak’s case (supra), the Court held to the<\/p>\n
following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
           9.     “Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on
\n           daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by reason
\n           thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently
\n           absorbed in service or made permanent in absence of any statute
\n           or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed
\n           240 days of work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the
\n           same would not mean that his services were liable to be
\n           regularised.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In Ghaziabad Development Authority’s case (supra), the dispute<\/p>\n
referred to the Labour Court was regarding termination of daily wagers<\/p>\n
appointed on ad hoc basis. It was held to the following effect:-<\/p>\n
           19.       “A statutory authority is obligated to make recruitments
\n           only upon compliance with the equality clause contained in
\n           Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any appointment
\n           in violation of the said contitutional scheme as also the statutory
\n           recruitment rules, if any, would be void.        These facts were
\n           required to the kept in mind by the Labour Court before passing
\n           an award of reinstatement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           20.       Furthermore, public interest would not be subserved if
\n           after such a long lapse of time, the first respondent is directed to
\n           be reinstated in service.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n C.W.P. No.17851 of 2007                                              -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
          Since the workman has no proof to have worked continuously as<\/p>\n
claimed by the workman, therefore, we are of the opinion that the workman<\/p>\n
is neither entitled to be reinstated or any back wages.<\/p>\n
          In view of the above, we allow the present writ petition and the<\/p>\n
impugned award dated 05.06.2006 (Annexure P-5), is set aside.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                                    (Hemant Gupta)\n                                                        Judge\n\n\n26th November 2008.                                 (Nawab Singh)\nMonika                                                  Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Divisional Forest Officer vs Bansi & Another on 26 November, 2008 C.W.P. No.17851 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17851 of 2007 Decided on : 26-11-2008 Divisional Forest Officer ….Petitioner VERSUS Bansi & another ….Respondents CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDivisional Forest Officer vs Bansi & Another on 26 November, 2008 - 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\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Divisional Forest Officer vs Bansi & Another on 26 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-27T16:27:32+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Divisional Forest Officer vs Bansi & Another on 26 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-27T16:27:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1155,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Divisional Forest Officer vs Bansi & Another on 26 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-27T16:27:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Divisional Forest Officer vs Bansi & Another on 26 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Bansi & Another on 26 November, 2008 - 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\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Bansi & Another on 26 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-27T16:27:32+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Bansi & Another on 26 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-27T16:27:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008"},"wordCount":1155,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008","name":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Bansi & Another on 26 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-27T16:27:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-bansi-another-on-26-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Divisional Forest Officer vs Bansi & Another on 26 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/85","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=85"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}