{"id":92948,"date":"2009-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009"},"modified":"2016-02-01T21:26:43","modified_gmt":"2016-02-01T15:56:43","slug":"ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Mineral Exploration Corpor vs Presiding Officer &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S.Mineral Exploration Corpor vs Presiding Officer &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                                    W.P. (L) No. 6308 of 2002\n\n                  M\/s. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd.            ...     Petitioner\n                                                      Versus\n                  The President Officer,\n                  Labour Court, Hazaribagh &amp; Ors.            ...         ...     Respondents\n                                             --------\n                  CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA\n\n                  For the Petitioner:                      Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate\n                  For the Respondents:                     Mr. Awanish Shankar, Advocate\n                                                --------\n                  C.A.V. on 25.03.2009                     Pronounced on    16. 04.2009.\n\n\n                                           ORDER\n08\/ 16.04.2009<\/pre>\n<p>.           The present writ petition has been preferred for the following<br \/>\n                  reliefs:-\n<\/p>\n<p>                  i) For issuance of an appropriate writ \/order\/direction from this<br \/>\n                       Hon&#8217;ble court for quashing the Award dated 17.7.2002 passed by<br \/>\n                       the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh in M.J. Case No. 4<br \/>\n                       of 1999 whereby and whereunder the learned Presiding Officer has<br \/>\n                       been pleased to hold that the applicants (Respondent Nos. 2 to 34<br \/>\n                       herein) are entitled for computation of the benefit of the Adhoc<br \/>\n                       Cash Award Scheme for the year 1998-99 and directed the<br \/>\n                       petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,52,377.15 paise (Rupees two<br \/>\n                       lakh fifty two thousand three hundred seventy seven and paise<br \/>\n                       fifteen) only alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from<br \/>\n                       the date of the filing of the case,\n<\/p>\n<p>                  ii) For a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the<br \/>\n                       concerned respondents to forbear from giving effect to or acting<br \/>\n                       pursuant to or in furtherance of the said impugned Award dated<br \/>\n                       17.7.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  2.      The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\n                  petitioner is as to whether the Labour Court in a proceeding u\/s<br \/>\n                  33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act can decide the issue involving<br \/>\n                  disputed question of fact and monetary benefit. He has also submitted<br \/>\n                  that the scheme for the period 1998-99 was not applicable to the<br \/>\n                  respondent workmen since they were admittedly contingent employees<br \/>\n                  and thus they cannot claim the benefit under the said scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  3.      The facts in brief are set out as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>                          An Adhoc Cash Award Scheme was introduced for drilling<br \/>\n                  operation in the year 1994 based on productivity and the cash award<br \/>\n                  was payable accordingly to all the persons working in the drilling<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>project during the period 1994-95. This scheme was initially for a<br \/>\nperiod of one year; but the same was extended from time to time.<br \/>\nHowever, since 1997-98 the Cash Award Scheme was made applicable<br \/>\nonly to all the persons at the drilling project excluding trainees and jobs<br \/>\ndone through contract. The relevant clause is quoted as under.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Clause 2.01. The Scheme shall be applicable to all persons at the<br \/>\n       Projects, excluding the trainees and jobs done through contracts.<br \/>\n       However, distribution of the total Cash Award earning between<br \/>\n       different employees has to be based on the following criteria:-<br \/>\n       &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     Respondent Nos. 2 to 34 filed an application before the Presiding<br \/>\nOfficer, Labour Court, stating that they were covered under the Adhoc<br \/>\nCash Award Scheme for drilling operation 1998-99 and were denied the<br \/>\npayment of cash award on the ground that they were contingent<br \/>\nemployees.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.     The counsel for the respondent also submitted that on the same<br \/>\nset of scheme they were paid the Cash Award Scheme up till the period<br \/>\n1997-98 and thus the denial of the benefit of the scheme in 1998-99<br \/>\nwas bad and illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.     It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent that even otherwise the order was bad, since it was in<br \/>\nviolation of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, since it<br \/>\namounted to change in service condition without any prior notice. The<br \/>\nlearned Presiding Officer passed the impugned Award on 17.7.2002<br \/>\nholding that the applicants are entitled for computation of the benefit<br \/>\nof Adhoc Cash Award Scheme for the year 1998-99 and directed the<br \/>\npetitioner to pay the amount of Rs.2,52,377.15 paise with interest at<br \/>\nthe rate of 6%.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.     I have considered the rival submissions as well as the pleadings.<br \/>\nBefore adverting to it, it will be necessary to refer Section 33-C (2).\n<\/p>\n<p>       Section 33-C (2) &#8220;Where any workman is entitled to receive from<br \/>\n       the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being<br \/>\n       computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the<br \/>\n       amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit<br \/>\n       should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules<br \/>\n       that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour<br \/>\n       Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate<br \/>\n       Government [within a period not exceeding three months;]<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      [Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court<br \/>\n      considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons<br \/>\n      to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further<br \/>\n      period as he may think fit.]<\/p>\n<p>8.    It will be evident on reading the aforesaid provision that if the<br \/>\nworkman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any<br \/>\nbenefit computed in terms of money then the same can be decided by<br \/>\nLabour Court.      However, the word entitlement preceeds the<br \/>\ncomputation which means it is basically executory in nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.     In the instant case the main claim of the respondent workmen<br \/>\nwas that they were entitled to receive money from the employer and or<br \/>\nbenefit under the Cash Award Scheme which they were getting till<br \/>\n1997-98 based on the productivity under the drilling operation project.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   The counsel for the petitioner Management has also referred and<br \/>\nrelied upon 2008(7) SCC page 22 (B. Krishnan and another Vrs.<br \/>\nSpecial Officer, Vellore Cooperative Sugar Mill and another) to<br \/>\nsupport his contention that Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes<br \/>\nAct is executary in nature and the proceedings under it pre supposes<br \/>\nadjudication leading to determination of a right, which has to be<br \/>\nenforced. The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1272620\/\">Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd.<br \/>\nv. Suresh Chand,<\/a> (1978) 2 SCC page 144 held that a proceeding<br \/>\nunder Section 33-C(2) is a proceeding in the nature of execution of<br \/>\nproceeding in which the Labour Court calculates the amount of money<br \/>\ndue to a workman from the employer, or, if the workman is entitled to<br \/>\nany benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money,<br \/>\nproceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money.         The Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nSupreme Court has followed this proposition in subsequent judgments<br \/>\nas well as has time and again held that the right to the money which is<br \/>\nsought to be calculated or to the benefit which is sought to be<br \/>\ncomputed must be a exceeding one, that is to say already adjudicated<br \/>\nupon or provided for and must arises in the course of and in relation to<br \/>\nthe relationship between Industrial workman and his employer. Section<br \/>\n33-C(2) are in the nature of execution proceedings is in no doubt, and<br \/>\nsuch proceedings presuppose some adjudication leading to the<br \/>\ndetermination of a right, which has to be enforced. Concededly there<br \/>\nhas been no such adjudication in the present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   The second aspect of the matter is that Clause 2.01 of the<br \/>\nscheme uses the sentence that the schemes shall be applicable to all<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>persons at the project excluding the trainees and jobs done through<br \/>\ncontracts and thus the contingent workmen were not entitled. The<br \/>\nground that they got it in the year 1997-98 by mistake, will certainly<br \/>\nnot entitle them as a matter of right to compel the Management to<br \/>\nagain commit the same wrong. No doubt earlier the scheme provided<br \/>\nfor payment even to contingent employees but from the year 1997-98<br \/>\nand 1998-99 it was modified and it specifically excluded the contingent<br \/>\nworkmen from the benefit of the scheme and thus the claim itself of<br \/>\nworkman has been disputed by Management.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.      The counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the<br \/>\naction of the petitioner Management herein is violation of Section 9-A<br \/>\nof the Industrial Disputes Act. However, I am of the firm opinion that<br \/>\nSection 9-A will not apply in this case, since it does not relate to any<br \/>\nchange in service condition.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.      The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh, has<br \/>\nclearly erred in holding that the respondent workmen were entitled u\/s<br \/>\n33-C (2) of the I.D. Act to get an order for the computation of their<br \/>\ndues regarding Adhoc Cash Award Scheme for the year 1998-99.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.      Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case and<br \/>\nin view of the non-applicability of the Scheme to the contingent<br \/>\nworkmen the entitlement itself was disputed and thus the impugned<br \/>\nAward passed under Section 33 (c )(2) of the I.D. Act is on the face of<br \/>\nit not maintainable, illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.      This writ petition is allowed and the impugned Award is set<br \/>\naside.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n\n\n                                                 (Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.)\nJharkhand High Court, Ranchi\nDated the 16th April, 2009\nD.S.\/NKC      N.A.F.R.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court M\/S.Mineral Exploration Corpor vs Presiding Officer &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 6308 of 2002 M\/s. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. &#8230; Petitioner Versus The President Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh &amp; Ors. &#8230; &#8230; Respondents &#8212;&#8212;&#8211; CORAM : HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT [&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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92948","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S.Mineral Exploration Corpor vs Presiding Officer &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2009 - 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\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Mineral Exploration Corpor vs Presiding Officer &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-01T15:56:43+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S.Mineral Exploration Corpor vs Presiding Officer &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-01T15:56:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1373,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009\",\"name\":\"M\/S.Mineral Exploration Corpor vs Presiding Officer &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-01T15:56:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S.Mineral Exploration Corpor vs Presiding Officer &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S.Mineral Exploration Corpor vs Presiding Officer &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2009 - 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\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Mineral Exploration Corpor vs Presiding Officer &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-01T15:56:43+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Mineral Exploration Corpor vs Presiding Officer &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-01T15:56:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009"},"wordCount":1373,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009","name":"M\/S.Mineral Exploration Corpor vs Presiding Officer &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-01T15:56:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mineral-exploration-corpor-vs-presiding-officer-ors-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Mineral Exploration Corpor vs Presiding Officer &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/92948","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=92948"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92948\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92948"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92948"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92948"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}