{"id":9158,"date":"2008-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-28T19:22:41","modified_gmt":"2016-10-28T13:52:41","slug":"bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bachna Ram vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Bachna Ram vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Civil Writ Petition No.3859 of 1987                      -1-\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                   AT CHANDIGARH\n                   ****\n                        Civil Writ Petition No.3859 of 1987\n                               Date of Decision:15.09.2008\n\nBachna Ram\n                                                         .....Petitioner\n            Vs.\n\nPresiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another\n                                                  .....Respondents\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL\n\nPresent:-   Mr. J.C. Verma, Senior Advocate with\n            Ms. Meenakshi Verma, Advocate for the\n            petitioner.\n\n            Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate for respondent\n            No.2.\n                         ****\nHARBANS LAL, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This petition is moved by Bachna Ram under Articles 226\/ 227<\/p>\n
of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned award dated<\/p>\n
13.3.1987 (Annexure P.6) being illegal and without jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
            The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Bant Ram, the<\/p>\n
present respondent joined employment of Bachna Ram as a Hali on his<\/p>\n
agricultural land. Bachna Ram agreed to pay 1\/5th share of the total crop to<\/p>\n
be produced to Bant Ram. All the expenses on the agriculture were to be<\/p>\n
borne by Bachna Ram. Bant Ram being illiterate did not know as to how<\/p>\n
much quantity of different crops of what value has been obtained by Bachna<\/p>\n
Ram. So by moving an application under sub-Section 2 of Section 33-C of<\/p>\n
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, `the Act’) claimed minimum<\/p>\n
wages at the rates fixed by the Haryana Government under the Minimum<\/p>\n
Wages Act, 1948 for the period shown in the award. Bachna Ram came up<\/p>\n
with the plea that the application is not maintainable as the agriculture
\n Civil Writ Petition No.3859 of 1987                     -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
labour does not come within the purview of the Act. The applicant was<\/p>\n
employed as a crop sharer, so, no relief is available to him under the Act.<\/p>\n
Similar claim was filed by him in the Labour Office, Kurukshetra under the<\/p>\n
appellate authority, which has been dismissed as withdrawn. It was also<\/p>\n
alleged that he never worked as a crop sharer on the agriculture land of<\/p>\n
Bachna Ram so he is not entitled to any wages. The following issues were<\/p>\n
framed:-\n<\/p>\n
            1.    Whether applicant is entitled to relief claimed for, if not<\/p>\n
                  its effect?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2.    Whether application is not maintainable? OPR<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3.    Whether there is no relationship of employer and<\/p>\n
                  employee between the parties, if so its effect? OPR<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            4.    Whether Labour Court has got no jurisdiction to try this<\/p>\n
                  dispute? OPR<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            5.    Whether application is barred by the principle of<\/p>\n
                  resjudicata, if so its effect?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            6.    Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            After hearing the representatives of the parties and perusing the<\/p>\n
oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Presiding Officer of the<\/p>\n
Labour Court passed the impugned award allowing a sum of Rs.10,000\/- to<\/p>\n
Bant Ram. Feeling aggrieved therewith, Bachna Ram has preferred this<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
            In the written statement, Bant Ram has inter-alia pleaded that<\/p>\n
the petitioner is not a small farmer but a big landlord.      He had been<\/p>\n
engaging the persons in his employment and the answering respondent was<\/p>\n
also in his employment. The answering respondent has based his claim on
\n Civil Writ Petition No.3859 of 1987                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
the minimum rates of wages. Thus, the petitioner being a employer comes<\/p>\n
within the definition of `industry’. There is ample evidence on the record to<\/p>\n
prove that the petitioner has 24 acres of land and running the agricultural<\/p>\n
operations as a trade and business by investing capital and employing the<\/p>\n
labour and thus falls under the definition of Section 2(j) of the Act. It is<\/p>\n
settled law that neither Section 24 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 nor<\/p>\n
Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1948 bars the jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
Labour Court to entertain and adjudicate upon an application under Section<\/p>\n
33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The answering respondent has<\/p>\n
claimed the wages on the minimum rates which has been fixed. Lastly, it<\/p>\n
has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n
            I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing<\/p>\n
the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court<\/p>\n
with due care and circumspection.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. J.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf<\/p>\n
of the petitioner argued with a good deal of force that the petitioner is a<\/p>\n
small farmer cultivating his land measuring about five and half acres. The<\/p>\n
relationship of employer and employee has been denied and that being so,<\/p>\n
the labour Court was not empowered to entertain the application under<\/p>\n
Section 33(C)(2) of the Act.     Such application does not fall under the<\/p>\n
purview of the Act. Even if Bant Ram is assumed to be a `Siri’ of the<\/p>\n
petitioner, the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the<\/p>\n
application when such an application had already been dismissed by the<\/p>\n
authorities under the Payment of Wages Act. The activities of the petitioner<\/p>\n
in cultivating his own land do not fall in the industry as is defined under<\/p>\n
Section 2(j) of the Act. In these premises, the award is liable to be quashed.
\n Civil Writ Petition No.3859 of 1987                       -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
             He further pressed into service that the principle of res-judicata<\/p>\n
is applicable to the act and withdrawal of the earlier application made by<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 in view of the observations made in re: Super Surgical<\/p>\n
Co., v. Desikan and another, 1969 Lab. I.C. 1347.\n<\/p>\n
             To tide over these submissions, Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 maintained that the petitioner is<\/p>\n
holding as much as 24 acres of land and he is running agricultural<\/p>\n
operations as a trade and business by investing capital and employing the<\/p>\n
labour and that being so, the case of the respondent, Bant Ram falls within<\/p>\n
the definition of Section 2(j) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
             I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival<\/p>\n
contentions. The most crucial question to be determined herein is as to<\/p>\n
whether the relationship of employer and employee did subsist between the<\/p>\n
parties. It is own case of respondent No.2 that he was engaged as a Hali by<\/p>\n
the petitioner who had agreed to pay him one fifth share of total crop to be<\/p>\n
obtained by them. It would be apparent on the face value of these facts, that<\/p>\n
the respondent- workman was a Siri with the petitioner. The meaning of the<\/p>\n
word `Siir’ as given in Punjabi English Dictionary published by Punjabi<\/p>\n
University, Patiala is `partnership’. As a matter of fact, Siri is known as a<\/p>\n
partnership in joint cultivation. Obviously, as alleged by the respondent-<\/p>\n
workman, he was to get one fifth share of the total crop. It implies that the<\/p>\n
relationship between the parties was not of employer and employee rather of<\/p>\n
partners in the joint cultivation. If we go by common sense, a partner cannot<\/p>\n
be considered to be a servant\/ employee. There is no denying the fact that<\/p>\n
the respondent- workman had filed an application in Labour Office,<\/p>\n
Kurukshetra which was dismissed as withdrawn by him. In re: Harinagar
\n Civil Writ Petition No.3859 of 1987                     -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
Cane Farm v. The State of Bihar and others<\/a>, AIR 1964 Supreme Court<\/p>\n
903, it has been ruled as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “It has been urged by the respondents that this decision<\/p>\n
            supports their argument that S.2(j) includes all agriculture and<\/p>\n
            agricultural operations, and in support of this proposition, they<\/p>\n
            have invited our attention to the statement in the judgment<\/p>\n
            delivered by Chandrasekhara Aiyar J., where it is observed that<\/p>\n
            the concept of industry in the ordinary non-technical sense<\/p>\n
            applies even to agriculture horticulture, pisciculture and so on<\/p>\n
            and so forth. We are not impressed by this argument. The<\/p>\n
            context in which this sentence occurs shown that the Court was<\/p>\n
            there dealing with the ordinary non-technical sense according<\/p>\n
            to what is understood by the man in the street as the denotation<\/p>\n
            of the word `industry’ or business,and so, the observations<\/p>\n
            made in that connection cannot be taken to amount to the broad<\/p>\n
            and unqualified proposition that agriculture of all kinds is<\/p>\n
            included in S.2(j).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            It can be culled out from these observations that agriculture of<\/p>\n
all kinds is not included in Section 2(j) of the Act. After surveying the<\/p>\n
entire law on the point including Harinagar Cane Farm’s case (supra), it<\/p>\n
has been held in re:- Maheswar Rao and others v. State of Orissa and<\/p>\n
others<\/a>, 1974 Lab I.C. 1512, that “it has also been settled that for<\/p>\n
determining whether an organisation is an industry or not, it must be<\/p>\n
ascertained as to whether its activity partakes the nature of a business or<\/p>\n
trade or is an undertaking or manufacture or calling of employers. If it is<\/p>\n
that and there is cooperation of the employer and the employee resulting in
\n Civil Writ Petition No.3859 of 1987                         -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
the production of material services, it is an industry. From the decisions it<\/p>\n
would appear that unless agriculture is adopted as a business or calling, the<\/p>\n
operations in the hands of the petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 cannot partake the<\/p>\n
character of industry. It would, therefore, follow that the petitioners do not<\/p>\n
run any industry and any dispute in regard to employment under them would<\/p>\n
not constitute “industrial dispute” within the definition of that term under<\/p>\n
the Industrial Disputes Act. The referring authority without application of<\/p>\n
mind and without examining the facts of the case suddenly proceeded to<\/p>\n
make the reference in exercise of powers vested in it under the Act.”<\/p>\n
             Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, as noted supra, the<\/p>\n
relationship of employer and employee did not exist between the parties.<\/p>\n
The respondent- workman was to get share from the produce. This fact in<\/p>\n
itself is sufficient to describe him as a partner. There is nothing on the<\/p>\n
record to show that the agriculture being adopted by the petitioner was a<\/p>\n
business or calling. That being so, the operations in his hands cannot be<\/p>\n
described to be an industry. The learned Presiding Officer has relied upon<\/p>\n
Harinagar Cane Farm’s case (supra). From the observations rendered<\/p>\n
therein, it follows that agriculture of all kinds is not included in Section 2(j).<\/p>\n
As a matter of fact, M\/s Harinagar Cane Farm had been purchased by the<\/p>\n
Harinagar Mills Limited in March, 1956 and since then it was functioning<\/p>\n
as a department of the said mills. M\/s Motipur Zamindari Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.<\/p>\n
was a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act.<\/p>\n
Herein, it is not the case of the respondent- workman that the petitioner is a<\/p>\n
company carrying on the business of agricultural operations, so the facts of<\/p>\n
that case are distinguishable from the one in hand.           To conclude, the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act are not attracted to the facts of the instant case.
\n Civil Writ Petition No.3859 of 1987                     -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
             In re: M\/s M.D. Oswal Hosiery (Regd.) v. D.D. Gupta, 1994<\/p>\n
(3) SCT 504, it has been observed that Section 33-C(2) of the Act applies<\/p>\n
when the workman has an existing established right to receive from<\/p>\n
employer any money or benefit which is capable of being computed in terms<\/p>\n
of money and in such eventuality, he can move the Labour Court for release<\/p>\n
of amount due to him. Once there is an admission of the existing right of<\/p>\n
workman by employer in regard to the benefit which the former is entitled<\/p>\n
to receive from the latter, Section 33-C(2) of the Act would come into play.<\/p>\n
             Harking back to the facts of the present case, the workman has<\/p>\n
not adduced any evidence before the Labour Court showing that he has an<\/p>\n
existing right to receive from employer any money. To add further to it, the<\/p>\n
alleged employer has not admitted the existing right of the workman in<\/p>\n
regard to the benefit claimed by him. The petitioner has rather denied the<\/p>\n
employment of the workman- respondent. Thus, in view of the observations<\/p>\n
extracted from D.D. Gupta’s case (supra), the application moved by the<\/p>\n
respondent- workman before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the<\/p>\n
Act was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
             In view of the above discussions, the interference under<\/p>\n
Articles 226\/227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. Sequelly, the<\/p>\n
impugned award dated 13.3.1987 (Annexure P-6) is set aside and this<\/p>\n
petition is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 15, 2008                                      ( HARBANS LAL )\nrenu                                                         JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Bachna Ram vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 Civil Writ Petition No.3859 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.3859 of 1987 Date of Decision:15.09.2008 Bachna Ram …..Petitioner Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another …..Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE […]<\/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-9158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBachna Ram vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 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\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bachna Ram vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-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=\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-28T13:52:41+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bachna Ram vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-28T13:52:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1933,\"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\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Bachna Ram vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-28T13:52:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bachna Ram vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Bachna Ram vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 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\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bachna Ram vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-28T13:52:41+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bachna Ram vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-28T13:52:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008"},"wordCount":1933,"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\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","name":"Bachna Ram vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-28T13:52:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachna-ram-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bachna Ram vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/9158","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=9158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9158\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}