{"id":95474,"date":"2007-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007"},"modified":"2018-07-25T13:26:20","modified_gmt":"2018-07-25T07:56:20","slug":"ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors on 27 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors on 27 April, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2204 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDeputy Labour Commr. & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/04\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.     2204             OF 2007
\n[Arising out of  SLP (Civil) No. 17526 of 2006]<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
 \tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
 \tRelationship between the parties hereto is employer and workmen.
\nAs far back in the year 1983, the appellant terminated the services of 37
\nworkmen allegedly on the ground that they had gone on an illegal strike.  It
\ngave rise to an industrial dispute.  The management and its 19 workmen
\nentered into compromise.  One workman died during pendency of the said
\ndispute.  Claim of 17 workmen, therefore, survived for adjudication in the
\naforementioned industrial dispute.  By an award dated 26.05.1993, the
\nindustrial court, to which reference of the dispute was made by the
\nappropriate government, directed:\n<\/p>\n
“Accordingly, the Employers are directed to
\nreinstate these 17 workers on duty on the original
\npost and payscale within one month after the date
\nof publication of this Award.  So far as the
\nquestion of back-wages is concerned, these
\nworkmen are to be paid 50% of their wages\/
\nallowances which they were getting on 2-6-83, for
\nthe period 1-8-87 till the date of their joining the
\nduty, within 2 months of publication of this
\nAward.  As regards the deceased Komal Singh, his
\nProvident Fund, Insurance money and wages\/
\nallowances upto 30-9-91 to be calculated in the
\nsame manner as was paid on 2-6-83 and 50% of
\nthe same is to be paid by the Employer to his wife
\nSmt. Shakuntala.  This is my Award in this
\ndispute.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe said award ultimately attained finality as the writ petition
\npreferred thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by an order dated
\n3.11.1995.  A Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst has also been
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 \tOn or about 2.08.1994, an application purported to be under Section
\n6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”)
\nclaiming backwages and bonus was filed wherein the total amount of claim
\nwas for a sum of Rs. 20,70,020.44.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Additional Labour Commissioner, however, on an objection
\nraised by the appellant to the effect that the amount of bonus could not be
\nincluded in the claim application issued a recovery certificate for a sum of
\nRs. 17,61,755.18.  A review application, however, was filed inter alia on the
\npremise that the workmen were not entitled to claim any bonus.  By an order
\ndated 9.11.1994, the said plea on the part of the appellant was accepted as a
\nresult whereof the claim was reduced to Rs. 5,31,030.90.  The said direction
\nadmittedly has been complied with.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe workmen, however, filed another application before the Labour
\nCommissioner, Ghaziabad claiming bonus for the period 1987 to 1996.  In
\nits objection filed thereto, the appellant contended:\n<\/p>\n
“It is respectfully submitted that the present claim
\nof Bonus for the period 1987 to 1996 have been
\nfiled on the last date of hearing on 04.7.96.  The
\nworkmen have earlier also filed a claim u\/s 6-H(1)
\nvide their application dtd. 02.8.94 and also
\nsubmitted list claiming Bonus, yearly increments,
\nleave with wages, etc.  The predecessor of the
\noffice Sh. Arjun Ram the then Addl. Labour
\nCommissioner heard the parties at length and
\npassed an order dtd. 26.9.94 amounting to Rs.
\n17,61,755.18.  The employers\/ management filed
\nan application to review the said order on
\n15.10.94.  The review application was heard in
\npresence of the parties and the earlier order dtd.
\n26.9.94, was reviewed, order modified to the
\nextent of Rs. 5,31,030.00.  The then Addl. Labour
\nCommissioner rejected the claim of Bonus, yearly
\nincrements etc. since the claim of Bonus yearly
\nincrements etc. have already been rejected by a
\ncompetent authority the same can’t be heard again.\n<\/p>\n
That the claim of Bonus does not fall in the
\ndefinition of ‘wages’ as defined in Section 2(y) of
\nthe U.P. I.D. Act, 1947 hence the said claim cannot
\nbe maintainable U\/s 6-H(1) of the U.P. I.D. Act,
\n1947 and deserves to be dismissed outrightly.\n<\/p>\n
That the Hon’ble Labour Court (I), Ghaziabad who
\npassed the Award in Adj. Case No. 275\/87 have
\nnot given any consequential relief.  Hence the
\nworkmen are not entitled to any relief\/ benefit such
\nas Bonus, leave etc. for the period Sep. 87 to June\n<\/p>\n
95.<\/p>\n
That on perusal of the Award, dtd. 26.5.98 made
\nby the Hon’ble Labour Court (I) Ghaziabad, it is
\nspecifically mentioned in the conclusion at page
\nNo. 12 that the workmen are only entitled to 50%
\nback wages at the rate of wages which they were
\ndrawing on 2.6.83.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tRejecting the said contention, however, the Labour Commissioner,
\nGhaziabad, by an order dated 8.08.1996 held:\n<\/p>\n
“After hearing the parties, I have come to the
\nconclusion that after the publication of the Award,
\nthe employer has made the payment of wages to
\nthe workmen but did not attribute them the work.
\nTherefore, these all workmen are completely
\nentitled for the bonus, because bonus is deferred
\nwage.  All workmen are entitled for the bonus at
\nthe rate on which other workmen have been paid
\nbonus in the organization.  Therefore, the
\nManagement shall calculate the same for the
\nperiod from 6.11.93 till the year 94-95.  The
\nanother issue is related to the grant of bonus for the
\nperiod prior to the publication of Award.  In the
\nAward in question, the Hon’ble Labour Court has
\npassed the order only for payment of the 50% of
\nthe wages to the Workmen on the issue of back
\nwages.  In this regard, the recovery order passed
\nby the Previous Ld. Addl. Commissioner does not
\ninclude the amount of bonus.  The Hon’ble Court
\nhas not used the word “other benefits” alongwith
\nthe Pay and allowances.  But, in my opinion, the
\nbonus is deferred wages and the same is included
\nin the Pay and salary.  Therefore, I do not agree
\nwith this pleading of the employer that the matter
\nshall be referred to the Labour Court for
\ninterpretation of the Payment\/ Wage under Section
\n11(B) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
\nSince in the Award the order for payment of 50 per
\ncent amount of back wages has been passed, thus,
\naccordingly the 50% of the bonus amount at the
\nrate payable to other workmen of the organization
\nshall be payable”\n<\/p>\n
 \tA review application filed thereagainst was dismissed.  A writ petition
\nwas filed by the appellant before the Allahabad High Court aggrieved by and
\ndissatisfied therewith.  A learned Judge of the said Court by an order dated
\n9.04.2003 held:\n<\/p>\n
“Coming to the facts of the Writ Petition No.
\n35708 of 1996, the facts being the same, claims
\nbeing only for the payment of bonus for the
\ndisputed period.  Once the employer themselves
\nhave paid the wages upto the month of June, 1996,
\nand since this Court has also rejected the writ
\npetition with regard to the payment of wages for
\nthe month of July, 1996, needless to say for the
\nreasons and the ground stated in this judgment
\nwith regard to writ petition No. 41691 of 1996, this
\nwrit petition also deserves to be dismissed and is
\nhereby dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tAn intra-Court appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by a
\nDivision Bench by reason of the impugned judgment holding:\n<\/p>\n
“The accepted translation of these two Hindi
\nwords as amongst learned counsel appearing is
\n“wages and allowances”.  A submission is made
\nthat the definition of the word “wages” in the U.P.
\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 specifically excludes
\nbonus.  Therefore, it is argued, the mention of
\nwages in the award cannot include bonus and the
\npassing of the Labour Commissioner’s order under
\nSection 6-H(1) including bonus is without
\nauthority as the original award cannot be said to
\nhave included it.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion, this argument suffers from a
\nfallacy.  The definition of the word “wages” is
\nmeant for construing the U.P. Industrial Disputes
\nAct.  Such definition in the Act is not meant to
\ngovern or limit the use of the word “wages” made
\nby any and every authority exercising jurisdiction
\nunder the Act or passing orders under the Act.  The
\nLabour Court’s award mentioning the phrase
\n“wages and allowance” has to be read in its proper
\nand normal context.  The Labour Commissioner
\ndid not in any manner misconstrue the said two
\nwords in including bonus within the term wages
\nand allowances.  Simply put, whatever the other
\nsimilarly situated workers got during the period the
\nseventeen workmen were kept out of employment,
\nand whatever the seventeen workmen would have
\ngot themselves had they not been put out of
\nemployment improperly, they were to get 50% of
\nall that.  That is the plain and simple reading of the
\nLabour Court’s award.  The order of the Labour
\nCommissioner has proceeded on this basis.  As
\nsuch the challenge by way of the second writ
\npetition to payment of 50% bonus also fails.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe appellant, would submit that in view of the definition of ‘wages’
\ncontained in Section 2(y) of the Act and Section 2(21) of the Payment of
\nBonus Act, in terms whereof bonus is neither wages nor allowance; the
\nLabour Commissioner committed a manifest error in directing payment
\nthereof on the spacious plea that it is deferred wages.  It was urged that in
\norder to interpret a judgment, the terms used therein, in the event of any
\nambiguity, must be interpreted in the light of the statute operating in the
\nfield.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Bharat Sangal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondents, on the other hand, would submit that bonus being a part of
\n‘remuneration’, a claim in relation thereto can also be made under the
\nPayment of wages Act.  It was submitted that the claim petition was not filed
\nfor enforcement of the award but as an independent claim in terms of the
\nprovisions of the Payment of Bonus Act in regard whereto an application
\nunder Section 6-H(1) of the Act before the Labour Commissioner was
\nmaintainable.  Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Sanghi
\nJeevaraj Ghewar Chand & Ors. v. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains Kirana
\nMerchants Workers’ Union & Anr.<\/a> [(1969) 1 SCR 366] and Kohinoor
\nTobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Adyal v. Presiding Officer, Second Labour
\nCourt, Nagpur and Others<\/a> [AIR 1986 Bom 340].\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe term ‘Wages’ has been defined in Section 2(y) of the Act in the
\nfollowing terms:\n<\/p>\n
“2(y)   ‘wages’ means all remuneration capable of
\nbeing expressed in terms of money, which would,
\nif the terms of employment, expressed or implied,
\nwere fulfilled, be payable to a workman in respect
\nof his employment, or of work done in such
\nemployment, and includes
\n  ( i )   such allowances (including dearness
\nallowance) as the workman is for the time being
\nentitled to;\n<\/p>\n
  ( ii )   the value of any house accommodation, or
\nof supply of light, water, medical attendance or
\nother amenity or of any service or of any
\nconcessional supply of foodgrains or other articles;
\n ( iii )   any travelling concession;\n<\/p>\n
but does not include
\n ( a )   any bonus;\n<\/p>\n
( b )   any contribution paid or payable by the
\nemployer to any pension fund or provident fund or
\nfor the benefit of the workman under any law for
\nthe time being in force;\n<\/p>\n
( c )   any gratuity payable on the termination of
\nhis service;”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t[Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
 \tSection 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defining the term
\n‘Wages’ is in pari materia with Section 2(y) of the Act, 1947.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe term “salary or wage” has been defined under Section 2(21) of
\nthe Payment of Bonus Act as under:\n<\/p>\n
“(21) “salary or wage” means all remuneration
\n(other than remuneration in respect of over-time
\nwork) capable of being expressed in terms of
\nmoney, which would, if the terms of employment,
\nexpress or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to an
\nemployee in respect of his employment or of work
\ndone in such employment and includes dearness
\nallowance (that is to say, all cash payments, by
\nwhatever name called, paid to an employee on
\naccount of a rise in the cost of living), but does not
\ninclude-\n<\/p>\n
(i) any other allowance which the employee is for
\nthe time being entitled to;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) the value of any house accommodation or of
\nsupply of light, water, medical attendance or other
\namenity or of any service or of any concessional
\nsupply of foodgrains or other articles;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) any travelling concession;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) any bonus (including incentive, production
\nand attendance bonus);\n<\/p>\n
(v) any contribution paid or payable by the
\nemployer to any pension fund or provident fund or
\nfor the benefit of the employee under any law for
\nthe time being in force;\n<\/p>\n
(vi) any retrenchment compensation or any
\ngratuity or other retirement benefit payable to the
\nemployee or any ex gratia payment made to him;\n<\/p>\n
(vii) any commission payable to the employee.
\nExplanation. -Where an employee is given in lieu
\nof the whole or part of the salary or wage payable
\nto him, free food allowance or free food by his
\nemployer, such food allowance or the value of
\nsuch food shall, for the purpose of this clause, be
\ndeemed to from part of the salary or wage of such
\nemployee;”\n<\/p>\n
 \tSection 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 defines “wages” in
\nthe following terms:\n<\/p>\n
“(vi) “wages” means all remuneration (whether by
\nway of salary, allowances, or otherwise) expressed
\nin terms of money or capable of being so
\nexpressed which would, if the terms of
\nemployment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be
\npayable to a person employed in respect of his
\nemployment or of work done in such employment,
\nand includes-\n<\/p>\n
(a) any remuneration payable under any award or
\nsettlement between the parties or order of a Court;\n<\/p>\n
(b) any remuneration to which the person
\nemployed is entitled in respect of overtime work or
\nholidays or any leave period;\n<\/p>\n
(c) any additional remuneration payable under the
\nterms of employment (whether called a bonus or
\nby any other name);\n<\/p>\n
(d) any sum which by reason of the termination of
\nemployment of the person employed is payable
\nunder any law, contract or instrument which
\nprovides for the payment of such sum, whether
\nwith or without deductions, but does not provide
\nfor the time within which the payment is to be
\nmade;\n<\/p>\n
(e)  any sum to which the person employed is
\nentitled under any scheme framed under any law
\nfor the time being in force,
\nbut does not include-\n<\/p>\n
(1) any bonus (whether under a scheme of profit
\nsharing or otherwise) which does not form part of
\nthe remuneration payable under the terms of
\nemployment or which is not payable under any
\naward or settlement between the parties or order of
\na Court;\n<\/p>\n
(2) the value of any house-accommodation, or of
\nthe supply of light, water, medical attendance or
\nother amenity or of any service excluded from the
\ncomputation of wages by a general or special order
\nof the State Government;\n<\/p>\n
(3) any contribution paid by the employer to any
\npension or provident fund, and the interest which
\nmay have accrued thereon;\n<\/p>\n
(4) any travelling allowance or the value of any
\ntravelling concession;\n<\/p>\n
(5) any sum paid to the employed person to defray
\nspecial expenses entailed on him by the nature of
\nhis employment; or
\n(6) any gratuity payable on the termination of
\nemployment in cases other than those specified in
\nsub-clause (d).”\n<\/p>\n
 \tDifferent statutes, enacted by the Parliament from time to time,
\nalthough beneficial in character to the workmen, seek to achieve different
\npurposes.  Different authorities have been prescribed for enforcing the
\nprovisions of the respective statutes.  The authority under the Payment of
\nWages Act is one of them.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn view of the fact that diverse authorities exercise jurisdiction which
\nmay be overlapping to some extent, the courts while interpreting the
\nprovisions of the statutes must interpret them in such a manner so as to give
\neffect thereto.\n<\/p>\n
  \tSection 6-H(1) of the Act provides for a proceeding which is in the
\nnature of an execution proceeding.  The said provision can be invoked inter
\nalia in the event any money is due to a workman under an award.  They
\ncannot be invoked in a case where ordinarily an industrial dispute can be
\nraised and can be referred to for adjudication by the appropriate government
\nto an industrial court.  The authorities to determine a matter arising under
\nSection 6-H(1) of the Act and an industrial dispute raised by the workmen
\nare different.  Section 6-H(1) of the Act, it will bear repetition to state, is in
\nthe nature of an execution provision.  The authority vested with the power
\nthereunder cannot determine any complicated question of law.  It cannot
\ndetermine a dispute in regard to existence of a legal right.  It cannot usurp
\nthe jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 11-B of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 \tA Labour Commissioner is not a judicial authority.  In view of
\nSection 11-B of the Act, it is for the State Government to construe an award,
\nin the event any dispute arises in giving effect thereto.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Labour Court in its award directed reinstatement of 17 workmen
\non the original post and payscale.  No increment was granted; no continuity
\nof service was directed.  What was directed was payment of 50% of the
\nbackwages\/ allowance while considering the question of backwages.\n<\/p>\n
 \tDefinition of ‘wages’ within the meaning of the Act does not include
\n“bonus”.  It, however, includes allowance.  Payment of Bonus Act also
\nexcludes bonus for the purpose of calculating the amount of bonus to be
\ndetermined in terms of Section 10 thereof.\n<\/p>\n
 \tPresiding Officer of the Labour Court is a judicial authority.  He is
\nsupposed to know the definition of ‘wages’ as contained in the Act.  The
\nrights and obligations of the parties were being determined only under the
\nAct and not in terms of any other law.\n<\/p>\n
 \tAn award made in favour of one party and against the other must be
\nclear and certain.  A person keeping in view the limited relief granted in
\nfavour of one party to the dispute may not question the correctness or
\notherwise thereof.  With a view to ascertain the certainty in regard to the
\nmeaning of the words used by a competent court of law and that too by an
\nexperienced judicial officer, they must be given the same meaning which are
\ngiven in a statute.\n<\/p>\n
 \tA judgment, it is trite, must be reasonable.  It must be construed in
\nsuch a manner so as not to offend the provisions of any statute.  It must not
\nbe held to be contrary to any statutory provisions.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Gajraj Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others [(2001) 5 SCC
\n762], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“A doubt arising from reading a judgment of the
\nCourt can be resolved by assuming that the
\njudgment was delivered consistently with the
\nprovisions of law and therefore a course or
\nprocedure in departure from or not in conformity
\nwith statutory provisions cannot be said to have
\nbeen intended or laid down by the Court unless it
\nhas been so stated specifically.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tBonus either in its ordinary meaning or statutory ones would not
\ninclude wages.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWhat is a ‘bonus’ within the meaning of a provision before the
\ncoming into force of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 came up for consideration
\nbefore this Court on various occasions.  Although reference thereto may not
\nbe strictly necessary, as the learned counsel appearing for the parties have
\nreferred to the same, we may take notice thereof.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Muir Mills Co. Ltd. v. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union, Kanpur<\/a> [(1955)
\n1 SCR 991], this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“It is therefore clear that the claim for bonus can
\nbe made by the employees only if as a result of the
\njoint contribution of capital and labour the
\nindustrial concern has earned profits. If in any
\nparticular year the working of the industrial
\nconcern has resulted in loss there is no basis nor
\njustification for a demand for bonus. Bonus is not a
\ndeferred wage. Because if it were so it would
\nnecessarily rank for precedence before dividends.
\nThe dividends can only be paid out of profits and
\nunless and until profits are made no occasion or
\nquestion can also arise for distribution of any sum
\nas bonus amongst the employees. If the industrial
\nconcern has resulted in a trading loss, there would
\nbe no profits of the particular year available for
\ndistribution of dividends, much less could the
\nemployees claim the distribution of bonus during
\nthat year”\n<\/p>\n
  \tBonus may be a deferred wage but the same must be construed in a
\ndifferent context.  When used in the context of ‘backwages’ and that too
\n50% of it, the same would not include backwages.  It is expected that had the
\nLabour Court intended to include the same, he would have explicitly said so.
\nEven now, under the Payment of Wages Act, bonus does not come within
\nthe purview of wages.  The decision was rendered when Payment of Bonus
\nAct had not been enacted.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe question came up for consideration, yet again, in Bala
\nSubrahmanya Rajaram v. B.C. Patil and Others<\/a> [(1958) SCR 1504] wherein
\nbonus was equated with remuneration but therein the question which arose
\nfor consideration was the quantum of bonus and in that context the court
\nwent into the question as to whether the same can be claimed under the
\nprovisions of the Payment of Wages Act.  When the bonus was considered
\nto be a part of remuneration, what was in the mind of this Court, was the
\ndefinition of ‘wages’ under the Payment of Wages Act, as it existed at the
\nrelevant time.  In the factual matrix obtaining therein, this Court held that
\n‘bonus’ would come within the purview of the term ‘remuneration’.
\nEvidently, ‘bonus’ would not come within the meaning of the said term as it
\nstands now and in view of the controversy involved herein, particularly, in
\nview of the fact that ‘bonus’ now stands explicitly excluded by reason of the
\nPayment of Wages (Amendment) Act, 1957 which came into effect from
\n1.04.1958.  This Court therein had no occasion to consider the question with
\nwhich we are beset with.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Sanghi Jeevaraj Ghewar Chand (supra), this Court took into
\nconsideration the history of the term “bonus” stating that a claim in regard to
\nbonus can be raised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
\nHaving regard to Sections 22 and 39 of the Payment of Bonus Act, it was
\nstated:\n<\/p>\n
“If a dispute, for instance, were to arise as
\nregards the quantum of available surplus, such a
\ndispute not being one falling under Section 22,
\nParliament had to make a provision for
\ninvestigation and settlement thereof. Though such
\na dispute would not be an industrial dispute as
\ndefined by the Industrial Disputes Act or other
\ncorresponding Act in force in a State, Section 39
\nby providing that the provisions of this Act shall
\nbe in addition to and not in derogation of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act or such corresponding law
\nmakes available the machinery in that Act or the
\ncorresponding Act available for investigation and
\nsettlement of industrial disputes thereunder for
\ndeciding the disputes arising under this Act. As
\nalready seen Section 22 artificially makes two
\nkinds of disputes therein referred to industrial
\ndisputes and having done so applies the provisions
\nof the Industrial Disputes Act and other
\ncorresponding law in force for their investigation
\nand settlement. But what about the remaining
\ndisputes? As the Act does not provide any
\nmachinery for their investigation and settlement,
\nParliament by enacting Section 39 has sought to
\napply the provisions of those Acts for investigation
\nand settlement of the remaining disputes, though
\nsuch disputes are not industrial disputes as defined
\nin those Acts. Though, the words “in force in a
\nState” after the words “or any corresponding law
\nrelating to investigation and settlement of
\nindustrial disputes” appear to qualify the words
\n“any corresponding law” and not t he Industrial
\nDisputes Act, the Industrial Disputes Act is
\nprimarily a law relating to investigation and
\nsettlement of industrial disputes and provides
\nmachinery therefor. Therefore the distinction there
\nmade between that Act and the other laws does not
\nseem to be of much point. It is thus clear that by
\nproviding in Section 39 that the provisions of this
\nAct shall be in addition to and not in derogation of
\nthose Acts, Parliament wanted to avail of those
\nActs for investigation and settlement of disputes
\nwhich may arise under this Act. The distinction
\nbetween Section 22 and Section 39, therefore, is
\nthat whereas Section 22 by fiction makes the
\ndisputes referred to therein industrial disputes and
\napplies the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
\nAct and other corresponding laws for the
\ninvestigation and settlement thereof, Section 39
\nmakes available for the rest of the disputes the
\nmachinery provided in that Act and other
\ncorresponding laws for adjudication of disputes
\narising under this Act. Therefore, there is no
\nquestion of a right to bonus under the Industrial
\nDisputes Act or other corresponding Acts having
\nbeen retained or saved by Section 39. Neither the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act nor any of the other
\ncorresponding laws provides for a right to bonus.
\nItem 5 in Schedule 3 to the Industrial Disputes Act
\ndeals with jurisdiction of tribunals set up under
\nSections 7, 7-A and 7-B of that Act, but does not
\nprovide for any right to bonus. Such a right is
\nstatutorily provided for the first time by this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Labour Court was not determining any right under the Payment
\nof Bonus Act.  It was while making its award determining the rights and
\nliabilities under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt, therefore, must have in mind the provisions of the Act alone.  The
\naforementioned decisions, therefore, have no application to the facts and
\ncircumstances of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWhen an interpretation clause uses the word “includes”, it is prima
\nfacie extensive.  When it uses the word “mean and include”, it will afford an
\nexhaustive explanation to the meaning which for the purposes of the Act
\nmust invariably be attached to the word or expression.  [See G.P. Singh’s
\nPrinciples of Statutory Interpretation, 10th Edition, Pages 173 and 175]<\/p>\n
 \tRecently, in N.D.P. Namboodripad (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of India
\n(UOI) and Ors. [2007 (4) SCALE 361], this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“17. If the words ‘and includes’ were intended to
\nrope in certain items which would not be part of
\nthe meaning, but for the definition, then Rule 62
\nwould have specified only ‘dearness pay’ as the
\nitem to be included but not ‘pay’. If pay, dearness
\nallowance and other allowances were already
\nincluded in ’emolument’ with reference to its
\ngeneral or normal meaning, as contended by
\nappellant, there was no reason to specifically again
\ninclude ‘pay’ in Rule 62. Inclusion of ‘pay’ and
\n‘dearness pay’ and non-inclusion of ‘dearness
\nallowance or other allowances’ in the definition of
\n’emolument’ is significant. The definition in Rule
\n62 is intended to clarify that only pay and dearness
\npay would be considered as ’emolument’ for
\npurposes of calculating pension. The words ‘and
\nincludes’ have been used in Rule 62, as meaning
\n‘comprises’ or ‘consists of.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThere is yet another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of.
\nA claim for bonus in the context of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act
\ncan be raised only by raising an industrial dispute.  It cannot be raised by
\nway of an execution application.  If a claim had been made under an award,
\nthe same attained finality when the amount payable thereunder had been
\ncalculated.  Bonus was a subject matter of claim in the first application filed
\nunder Section 6-H(1) of the Act.  The amount payable thereunder had been
\ndetermined.  Another application under Section 6-H(1) of the Act for the
\npurpose of enforcement of award, therefore, was, in our opinion, not
\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWhen the second application was filed, the same was de’hors the
\naward.  It was an independent claim.  Such an independent claim, thus, on a
\nplain reading of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act could have been
\nraised as an industrial dispute in the light of the decision of this Court in
\nSanghi Jeevaraj Ghewar Chand (supra).  The decision of the Full Bench of
\nthe Bombay High Court in Kohinoor Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd (supra), in
\nour opinion, to that extent is not correct.  When the statute provides for a
\nremedy in a particular manner, the same cannot be achieved by filing an
\napplication which subserves a different purport and object.\n<\/p>\n
 \tSuch an application was, thus, not maintainable under Section 6-H(1)
\nof the Act which corresponds to Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes
\nAct.  Even the jurisdiction of a Labour Court in terms of Section 33C(2) of
\nthe Industrial Disputes Act would be limited.\n<\/p>\n
 \tAn application under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
\n1947 must be for enforcement of a right.  If existence of right, thus, is
\ndisputed, the provisions may not be held to have any application.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Labour Commissioner in view of the decision of this Court in
\nMuir Mills Co. Ltd (supra) has evidently committed a manifest error in
\nopining that bonus is deferred wages.  Once it is excluded from the purview
\nof the term ‘wages’ under the Act, such a view was impermissible in law,
\nparticularly, when the appellant denied and disputed the right of the
\nworkmen to claims.  Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
\nof the High Court also fell to the same error.  The learned Judges even did
\nnot address themselves the right questions.  They, thus, misdirected
\nthemselves in law.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot
\nbe sustained which is set aside accordingly.  The appeal is allowed.  No
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors on 27 April, 2007 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2204 of 2007 PETITIONER: M\/s. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories RESPONDENT: Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/04\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-95474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors on 27 April, 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\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors on 27 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-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=\"2007-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-25T07:56:20+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=\"24 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-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors on 27 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-25T07:56:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4852,\"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\\\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors on 27 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-25T07:56:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors on 27 April, 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":"M\/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors on 27 April, 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\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors on 27 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-25T07:56:20+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors on 27 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-25T07:56:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007"},"wordCount":4852,"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\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007","name":"M\/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors on 27 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-25T07:56:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hamdard-wakf-laboratories-vs-deputy-labour-commr-ors-on-27-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors on 27 April, 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\/95474","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=95474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95474\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}