{"id":91804,"date":"2007-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007"},"modified":"2016-10-29T17:20:11","modified_gmt":"2016-10-29T11:50:11","slug":"g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"G.Charles Balasundaram vs The Deputy General Manager on 29 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
G.Charles Balasundaram vs The Deputy General Manager on 29 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                      DATED:  29.1.2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n                              \n                Writ Petition No.9291 of 2003\n                              \n \n                             \nG.Charles Balasundaram                       .. Petitioner\n                              \n                              \n\t                    vs.\n\n\n1. The Deputy General Manager,\n   Pondicherry Agro Service and\n     Industries Corporation Ltd.,\n   Agro House, Thattachavady,\n   Pondicherry 605 009.\n\n2. The Presiding Officer,\n   Labour Court,\n   Karaikal                        \t    ..Respondents\n\n\n\n       Writ   Petition  filed  under  Article  226  of   the\n\nConstitution of India as stated therein.\n\n\n             For petitioner  :  Mr.M.Gnanasekar\n\n             For respondents :  Mr.T.P.Manoharan for R1\n                              \n                              \n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a<\/p>\n
writ  of  certiorarified mandamus to call  for  the  records<\/p>\n
relating to the Award, dated 13.1.2003, in I.D.No.6 of 2001,<\/p>\n
on  the file of the second respondent and quash the same and<\/p>\n
consequently to direct the first respondent to re-employ the<\/p>\n
petitioner with all consequential benefits.<\/p>\n
      The  brief  facts  of  the  case,  as  stated  by  the<\/p>\n
petitioner, are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      2.  The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Store<\/p>\n
Keeper  in the year, 1989. He was paid a sum of Rs.39\/-  per<\/p>\n
day being a casual employee. While so, after March 1993, the<\/p>\n
first  respondent had declined to engage the  petitioner  in<\/p>\n
service.  Therefore,  the  petitioner  had  approached   the<\/p>\n
concerned Labour Officer. While the matter was pending,  the<\/p>\n
Managing  Director of the first respondent  Corporation  had<\/p>\n
informed the petitioner that his case was considered by  the<\/p>\n
Board,  for  absorption,  and that he  should  withdraw  the<\/p>\n
petition pending before the Labour Officer. Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
petitioner  did  not pursue the petition before  the  Labour<\/p>\n
Officer.  Since  no  steps  had been  taken  to  absorb  the<\/p>\n
petitioner  in  service, he had submitted an application  to<\/p>\n
the  respondent  Corporation  for  settling  the  employees’<\/p>\n
Provident Fund dues. Since he was without employment and for<\/p>\n
the  reason that he had to take care of his family,  he  had<\/p>\n
gone abroad, for about 13 months, in search of a job. He had<\/p>\n
gone  away from the month of September, 1996 till the  month<\/p>\n
of October, 1997.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3.   The   petitioner   had  initiated   conciliation<\/p>\n
proceedings and since it had failed, the matter was referred<\/p>\n
to  the Labour Court, in I.D.No.6 of 2001. The labour  Court<\/p>\n
has dismissed the petition, without proper consideration  of<\/p>\n
the materials on record. Therefore, the petitioner had filed<\/p>\n
the  present writ petition challenging the award  passed  by<\/p>\n
the labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
      4.  In  the counter-affidavit filed on behalf  of  the<\/p>\n
first respondent it has been stated that the petitioner  had<\/p>\n
suppressed the material facts and documents relating to  the<\/p>\n
case  and had belatedly raised the Industrial Dispute making<\/p>\n
vexatious and untenable claims.\n<\/p>\n
       5.It  has  been  stated  that  the  first  respondent<\/p>\n
Corporation is a Government of Pondicherry undertaking and a<\/p>\n
Company  registered under the Companies Act,  1956.  It  has<\/p>\n
been  established mainly for the purpose of the  development<\/p>\n
of  Agriculture  and other agro relevant activities  in  the<\/p>\n
Union Territory of Pondicherry. Permanent employees had been<\/p>\n
engaged  to  carry  out  the  regular  work  of  the   first<\/p>\n
respondent Corporation. However, to attend to the occasional<\/p>\n
and  temporary miscellaneous work, daily rated employees had<\/p>\n
been  engaged,  from  time  to time.  With  regard  to  such<\/p>\n
occasional  and temporary miscellaneous work, the petitioner<\/p>\n
had  been engaged in the Karaikal branch of the corporation,<\/p>\n
from  27.5.1991, depending upon the requirement, paying  him<\/p>\n
the wages at the rate of Rs.39\/- per day. The petitioner was<\/p>\n
neither a regular employee nor a temporary employee  of  the<\/p>\n
Corporation and therefore, his name had not been included in<\/p>\n
the  rolls  of  the  regular employees of  the  Corporation.<\/p>\n
During  the month of September-November 1992, the petitioner<\/p>\n
had  got an employment in Saudi Arabia and therefore, he had<\/p>\n
left  India.   Hence, the petitioner had not turned  up  for<\/p>\n
work  from  4.11.1992. Since the petitioner had  voluntarily<\/p>\n
left seeking employment in Saudi Arabia, he had claimed  the<\/p>\n
monetary  benefits,  payable under the employees’  provident<\/p>\n
fund scheme, 1952, and the employees’ Family Pension Scheme,<\/p>\n
1971,  and  he  had  also received the  same.  He  has  also<\/p>\n
prepared  and  submitted the Form-19, under  the  Employees’<\/p>\n
Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, wherein, he had stated the date<\/p>\n
of  leaving  the services of the corporation, as 10.11.1992.<\/p>\n
Even  in  the other Forms, which he had submitted  the  same<\/p>\n
date  has  been  given.  It only goes to show  that  he  had<\/p>\n
voluntarily  left  from  10.11.1992 and  had  not  presented<\/p>\n
himself for employment thereafter. Suppressing all the facts<\/p>\n
as  stated  above, the petitioner had raised  an  Industrial<\/p>\n
Disputes,  in  I.D.No.6 of 2001, on the file of  the  second<\/p>\n
respondent,  stating that he was removed from  service  from<\/p>\n
the  year,  1993,  and  that he had  been  appointed  as  an<\/p>\n
Assistant  Store  Keeper in the respondent Corporation  from<\/p>\n
the  month of February, 1989, and he was being paid a salary<\/p>\n
of Rs.3,000\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n
      6.However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf  of<\/p>\n
the  petitioner had submitted that the model standing orders<\/p>\n
would  be applicable to him and accordingly, even if it  was<\/p>\n
taken, as stated by the respondent Corporation, that he  had<\/p>\n
abandoned his service or that he had stopped from  work,  an<\/p>\n
enquiry  should  have been conducted, since  he  was  coming<\/p>\n
under the category of workman.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing  on<\/p>\n
behalf  of  the  first respondent Corporation had  submitted<\/p>\n
that  the petitioner was only a daily rated employee,  being<\/p>\n
paid  a  sum of Rs.39\/- per day, and only on that basis  the<\/p>\n
petitioner had turned up for work to carry out the temporary<\/p>\n
miscellaneous  work.   Further, the petitioner  had  made  a<\/p>\n
representation  for  the  first time,  on  13.10.1999,  with<\/p>\n
regard to his alleged non-employment from the year, 1993. No<\/p>\n
worthwhile explanation had been given for such a long  delay<\/p>\n
in  raising the issue of alleged non-employment. Inspite  of<\/p>\n
the  petitioner  being asked to file his  passport,  he  had<\/p>\n
refused  to  do so.  Since such production of  the  passport<\/p>\n
would show that he had not been present in India during the<\/p>\n
relevant  period.  Therefore,  adverse  inference  could  be<\/p>\n
gathered against the claims made by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
     8.On analysing the rival contentions advanced on behalf<\/p>\n
of the petitioner as well as for the first respondent and on<\/p>\n
a  perusal of the documents available, it is clear that  the<\/p>\n
labour  Court had taken into consideration all the  relevant<\/p>\n
factors,  before  it  had  passed  the  final  Award,  dated<\/p>\n
13.1.2003,  in I.D.No.6 of 2001. Nothing has been  shown  on<\/p>\n
behalf  of  the  petitioner to support  his  contentions  to<\/p>\n
persuade  this Court to conclude that the award was  wrongly<\/p>\n
made.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9.From  the facts and circumstances of the case,  this<\/p>\n
Court  is not in a position to find any flaw in the findings<\/p>\n
of  the labour Court in its Award, dated 13.1.2003. Further,<\/p>\n
this Court, while exercising its powers under Article 226 of<\/p>\n
the Constitution of India, cannot be persuaded to reappraise<\/p>\n
the  evidence, based on which the labour Court had  come  to<\/p>\n
its  conclusion, as held by a decision of the Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
in  Hari  Shankar  Sharma and Others  Vs.  Artificial  Limbs<\/p>\n
Manufacturing Corpn., and others ((2002) 1  SCC 337).<\/p>\n
      In  such view of the matter, the writ petition  stands<\/p>\n
dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Deputy General Manager,
\n   Pondicherry Agro Service and
\n     Industries Corporation Ltd.,
\n   Agro House, Thattachavady,
\n   Pondicherry 605 009<\/p>\n
2. The Presiding Officer,
\n   Labour Court,
\n   Karaikal<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court G.Charles Balasundaram vs The Deputy General Manager on 29 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.1.2007 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.9291 of 2003 G.Charles Balasundaram .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Deputy General Manager, Pondicherry Agro Service and Industries Corporation Ltd., Agro House, Thattachavady, Pondicherry […]<\/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-91804","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG.Charles Balasundaram vs The Deputy General Manager on 29 January, 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\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.Charles Balasundaram vs The Deputy General Manager on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-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=\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-29T11:50:11+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\\\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.Charles Balasundaram vs The Deputy General Manager on 29 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-29T11:50:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1116,\"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\\\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007\",\"name\":\"G.Charles Balasundaram vs The Deputy General Manager on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-29T11:50:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.Charles Balasundaram vs The Deputy General Manager on 29 January, 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":"G.Charles Balasundaram vs The Deputy General Manager on 29 January, 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\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.Charles Balasundaram vs The Deputy General Manager on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-29T11:50:11+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\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.Charles Balasundaram vs The Deputy General Manager on 29 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-29T11:50:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007"},"wordCount":1116,"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\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007","name":"G.Charles Balasundaram vs The Deputy General Manager on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-29T11:50:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-charles-balasundaram-vs-the-deputy-general-manager-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.Charles Balasundaram vs The Deputy General Manager on 29 January, 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\/91804","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=91804"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91804\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91804"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91804"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91804"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}