{"id":89709,"date":"2000-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2"},"modified":"2015-05-24T22:14:28","modified_gmt":"2015-05-24T16:44:28","slug":"rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2","title":{"rendered":"Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Y.K.Sabharwal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.R.Babu, Y.K.Sabharwal<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 1935-1936  of  1998\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nRHONE-POULENC (INDIA) LTD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P.  &amp; ORS.  .\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t26\/09\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.R.Babu, Y.K.Sabharwal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>L&#8230;..I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>      J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>      Y.K.SABHARWAL,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Respondent   No.3\t  was\t working    as\t a   Medical<br \/>\nRepresentative\twith the appellant.  By an order dated\t11th<br \/>\nMarch,\t1986  issued  by the Regional Sales Manager  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant,  respondent no.3 was transferred from Aligarh  to<br \/>\nKanpur.\t  Respondent No.3, however, did not join the  duties<br \/>\nat  Kanpur despite grant of various opportunities.  Thus,  a<br \/>\ncharge-sheet   dated  13th  October,   1986  was  issued  to<br \/>\nrespondent  no.3.  An enquiry was held.\t Respondent no.3 did<br \/>\nnot  participate in the enquiry.  The enquiry officer  found<br \/>\nthe  charges proved.  By order dated 24th June, 1987  passed<br \/>\nby  the\t appellant,  respondent\t  no.3\twas  dismissed\tfrom<br \/>\nservice.   An  industrial dispute was raised  by  respondent<br \/>\nno.3.\tThe  State  Government\t referred  the\tdispute\t for<br \/>\nadjudication  of  the Labour Court to determine whether\t the<br \/>\ntermination  of respondent no.3 was correct and legal and if<br \/>\nnot  to what relief the workman was entitled to.  The Labour<br \/>\nCourt  by  order  dated\t 22nd September, 1993  came  to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  respondent  no.3  was\t a  Sales  Promotion<br \/>\nEmployee as per the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of<br \/>\nService) Act, 1976 and as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes Act, 1947, he comes under the definition of workman<br \/>\nand  has a right to raise the industrial dispute.  The\tsaid<br \/>\norder  also held that the enquiry conducted by the appellant<br \/>\nagainst\t the workman was not according to the principles  of<br \/>\nnatural\t justice.   By award dated 18th December, 1995,\t the<br \/>\nLabour Court held that the appellant has failed to prove the<br \/>\ncharge of misconduct against respondent no.3 and termination<br \/>\nof his services with effect from 24th June, 1987 is improper<br \/>\nand  illegal and he is entitled to reinstatement in  service<br \/>\nalong  with consequential benefits.  The plea of  respondent<br \/>\nno.3  that  the\t transfer  order   had\tbeen  issued  by  an<br \/>\nincompetent  authority\tand, therefore,\t the  non-compliance<br \/>\nthereof\t cannot\t be treated as misconduct was accepted.\t  It<br \/>\nwas  noticed in the award that the appellant did not produce<br \/>\nany  material  to prove that the Regional Sales Manager\t was<br \/>\ncompetent to pass an order of transfer or that the powers to<br \/>\ntransfer  the Medical Representatives had been delegated  to<br \/>\nthe  Regional  Sales  Manager.\t It was\t admitted  that\t the<br \/>\nCorporate Manager had the power to pass order of transfer of<br \/>\nMedical\t Representatives.   Two writ petitions filed by\t the<br \/>\nappellant,  one challenging the order dated 22nd  September,<br \/>\n1993 and the other the award dated 18th December, 1995, were<br \/>\ndismissed  by  the High Court by a common judgment which  is<br \/>\nunder challenge in these appeals.  Mr.\tV.R.  Reddy, learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t for  the appellant, contends that the Labour  Court<br \/>\nhad no jurisdiction to deal with the matter since respondent<br \/>\nno.3,  a  Medical Representative, could not be held to be  a<br \/>\n`deemed\t workman&#8217; within the meaning of the U.P.  Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes  Act  by  virtue  of  Section\t6(2)  of  the  Sales<br \/>\nPromotion  Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.\t The<br \/>\nsaid  section reads as under :\t&#8220;6(2) The provisions of\t the<br \/>\nIndustrial  Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), as in force for<br \/>\nthe  time  being, shall apply to, or in relation  to,  sales<br \/>\npromotion  employees  as they apply to, or in  relation\t to,<br \/>\nworkmen\t within the meaning of the Act and for the  purposes<br \/>\nof  any\t proceeding  under  that   Act\tin  relation  to  an<br \/>\nindustrial  dispute,  a\t sales promotion employee  shall  be<br \/>\ndeemed\tto  include a sales promotion employee who has\tbeen<br \/>\ndismissed,  discharged or retrenched in connection with,  or<br \/>\nas  a  consequence  of,\t that dispute  or  whose  dismissal,<br \/>\ndischarge or retrenchment had led to that dispute.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      The contention of the learned counsel is that assuming<br \/>\nthe  aforesaid\tprovision is applicable, it still  does\t not<br \/>\nextend\tthe deeming fiction to any State enactment including<br \/>\nthe  U.P.   Industrial\tDisputes Act as it  is\tapparent  on<br \/>\nreading\t of  the  section that\tSales  Promotion  Employees,<br \/>\nwithin\tthe  meaning of Central enactment of the  Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes  Act,\t1947  (14  of 1947)  have  been\t treated  as<br \/>\n`workman&#8217;.   Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel<br \/>\non  a  Constitution  Bench decision of this  Court  in\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1539516\/\">H.R.<br \/>\nAdyanthaya  &amp; Ors.  v.\tSandoz (India) Ltd.  &amp; Ors.<\/a>  [(1994)<br \/>\n5  SCC\t737].\tThe Bench has held that\t since\tthe  Medical<br \/>\nrepresentatives\t are  not workmen within the meaning of\t the<br \/>\nMaharashtra  Act, the complaint made to the Industrial Court<br \/>\nunder  the  Maharashtra\t Recognition  of  Trade\t Unions\t and<br \/>\nPrevention  of\tUnfair\tLabour Practices Act, 1971  was\t not<br \/>\nmaintainable.\tThe  acceptance\t of the\t contention  of\t Mr.<br \/>\nReddy  that respondent no.3 in view of Sandoz case is not  a<br \/>\n`workman&#8217;  within  the\tmeaning\t of  the  U.P.\t  Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes  Act,\thowever,  does\tnot help  the  appellant  in<br \/>\nsubstance  as  in the present case we propose to  adopt\t the<br \/>\nsame  course  as was adopted in Sandoz case by treating\t the<br \/>\ncomplaint  to be an industrial dispute under the  Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes  Act, 1947 in exercise of the powers of this  Court<br \/>\nunder  Article 142 of the Constitution.\t More than 12  years<br \/>\nhave  passed since the reference was made to the  Industrial<br \/>\nCourt  and  in the facts and circumstances of the  case,  we<br \/>\nthink  it appropriate to adopt the course as was adopted  in<br \/>\nSandoz case.  Thus, we treat the reference in question to be<br \/>\none  under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes\tAct,<br \/>\n1947.\tThe appellant did not place any material before\t the<br \/>\nLabour\tCourt  to prove the authority and competence of\t the<br \/>\nRegional  Sales Manager to order the transfer of  respondent<br \/>\nno.3.\tThe  appellant has been unable to make out any\tcase<br \/>\nfor  disturbing the finding recorded by the Labour Court  as<br \/>\naffirmed  by  the  High\t Court that the\t transfer  order  of<br \/>\nrespondent  no.3  had  not  been   issued  by  a   competent<br \/>\nauthority.   The mere fact that after the order of  transfer<br \/>\nhad  been  issued  and when respondent no.3  had  failed  to<br \/>\nreport for duty, he was also asked by the Corporate Manager,<br \/>\nwho  was competent to order his transfer, to join the duties<br \/>\nat  Kanpur will not validate the order of transfer issued by<br \/>\nan  authority  not competent to do so.\tThe High  Court\t has<br \/>\nalso  held  that  respondent no.3 is entitled  to  the\tsame<br \/>\namount\tof salary\/arrears of salary after he was  reinstated<br \/>\nby  the\t award\tof the Labour Court which  his\tcounterparts<br \/>\n(Medical  Representatives)  in\tthe appellant  company\twere<br \/>\nreceiving under the settlement dated 25th June, 1988 and has<br \/>\nfurther\t held that the said settlement is applicable to\t the<br \/>\ncase  of  respondent  no.3  as well  and  the  appellant  is<br \/>\nestopped  from taking the plea of its non- applicability  in<br \/>\ncase  of  respondent  no.3.  Mr.  Reddy\t contents  that\t the<br \/>\naforesaid  finding  of\tthe High Court deserves\t to  be\t set<br \/>\naside.\t We agree.  The question whether respondent no.3  is<br \/>\nentitled  or  not  to the benefit of settlement\t dated\t25th<br \/>\nJune,  1988  was not the subject matter of the\taward  which<br \/>\ndirected  the reinstatement of workman in service along with<br \/>\nconsequential\tbenefits.   What    consequential   benefits<br \/>\nrespondent  no.3  would be entitled to was not\tthe  subject<br \/>\nmatter\tof  the\t writ  petitions   before  the\tHigh  Court.<br \/>\nAccording  to the appellant, respondent no.3 is not entitled<br \/>\nto the benefits under the settlement whereas respondent no.3<br \/>\nclaims\tsuch  benefits.\t  This\tquestion   may\thave  to  be<br \/>\nadjudicated by a competent authority at an appropriate stage<br \/>\nwhen the question of grant of consequential relief is raised<br \/>\nor  it is contended that full consequential reliefs in terms<br \/>\nof the award have been denied to respondent no.3.  The stage<br \/>\nof  implementation of the award had not come when the matter<br \/>\nwas pending before the High Court.  The only question before<br \/>\nthe  High Court was with regard to the legality of the award<br \/>\nand  the  order dated 22nd September, 1993 whereby  the\t two<br \/>\npreliminary  issues  were decided by the Labour\t Court.\t  In<br \/>\nthis  view, we set aside the impugned judgment to the extent<br \/>\nit  directs  that  respondent no.3 is entitled to  the\tsame<br \/>\namount\tof  salary\/arrears of salary which his\tcounterparts<br \/>\nare  receiving under the settlement dated 25th June, 1988 as<br \/>\nalso  the finding that the said settlement is applicable  to<br \/>\nrespondent  no.3  and  that the appellant is  estopped\tfrom<br \/>\ntaking\tthe plea of its non- applicability.  We leave  these<br \/>\nquestions  open\t without  expressing any opinion as  to\t the<br \/>\napplicability  or otherwise of the settlement to the case of<br \/>\nrespondent  no.3  or  the  validity  of\t other\tlegal  pleas<br \/>\nincluding  that\t of  estoppel.\t It would  be  open  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant  and respondent no.3 to raise such pleas as may be<br \/>\navailable  to  them in law at the appropriate stage  and  it<br \/>\ngoes without saying that the said aspects will be decided on<br \/>\nits  own  merits in accordance with law.  For the  aforesaid<br \/>\nreasons,  we partly allow the appeals to the limited  extent<br \/>\nas  above and in all other aspects we maintain the  impugned<br \/>\njudgment  of  the High Court.  The parties are left to\tbear<br \/>\ntheir own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2000 Author: Y.K.Sabharwal Bench: S.R.Babu, Y.K.Sabharwal CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1935-1936 of 1998 PETITIONER: RHONE-POULENC (INDIA) LTD Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. &amp; ORS. . DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/09\/2000 BENCH: S.R.Babu, Y.K.Sabharwal JUDGMENT: L&#8230;..I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J J U D G M [&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-89709","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>Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2000 - 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\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2\" \/>\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=\"2000-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-24T16:44:28+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\\\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-24T16:44:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2\"},\"wordCount\":1484,\"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\\\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2\",\"name\":\"Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-24T16:44:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2000 - 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\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-24T16:44:28+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\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2000","datePublished":"2000-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-24T16:44:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2"},"wordCount":1484,"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\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2","name":"Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-24T16:44:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rhone-poulenc-india-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-september-2000-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2000"}]},{"@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\/89709","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=89709"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89709\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89709"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89709"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89709"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}