{"id":99437,"date":"2008-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008"},"modified":"2015-09-04T02:21:21","modified_gmt":"2015-09-03T20:51:21","slug":"a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Ors vs The Presiding Officer, Labour … on 29 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Ors vs The Presiding Officer, Labour … on 29 April, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, V.S. Sirpurkar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3053 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nA. Satyanarayana Reddy and Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nThe Presiding Officer, Labour Court,Guntur & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/04\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nREPORTABLE<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3053  OF 2008
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No.15731 of 2005)<\/p>\n
S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tInterpretation of the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial
\nDisputes Act, 1947 vis-`-vis a Voluntary Retirement Scheme framed by the
\nState of Andhra Pradesh is in question in this appeal which arises out of a
\njudgment and order dated 13.4.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 820 of 2005 dismissing the
\nappeal from a judgment and order dated 21.3.2005 passed by a learned
\nsingle judge of the said Court in Writ Petition No. 4196 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
3. \tAppellants were the employees of Nagarjuna Cooperative Sugars
\nLimited, a Government of Andhra Pradesh Undertaking.  It was declared to
\nbe a ‘relief undertaking’ in terms of Andhra Pradesh Relief Undertaking
\n(Special Provisions) Act, 1971.  The management of the industrial
\nundertaking declared lay off wherefor compensation was to be paid.  The
\nEmployees’ Union of the said industrial undertaking filed a Writ Petition in
\nthe High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning a Memo dated 5.1.1998
\nwhereby and whereunder lay off compensation was denied to the workmen.
\nAccording to the workmen, that lay off compensation was paid only for the
\nmonths of June and July 1995.  They claimed existing legal right for
\nobtaining lay off compensation for the period 1.8.1995 to 6.9.2002.\n<\/p>\n
4. \tBefore, however, we embark upon the said question, we may place on
\nrecord that the State of Andhra Pradesh sold the said factory to one SCM
\nSugars Limited.  Some of the workmen were absorbed by the transferee
\nCompany.  Out of the said absorbed employees, some of them were paid lay
\noff compensation and some were not.   At one point of time, all the workmen
\nhad shown their willingness to continue to work under the new management.
\nLater, however, the Government of Andhra Pradesh permitted the said SCM
\nSugars Limited to shift the factory to the State of Karnataka, as a result
\nwhereof, the workmen lost the opportunity to continue to be employed.\n<\/p>\n
5. \tThe Government of Andhra Pradesh  issued G.O. Ms. No. 25 dated
\n21.5.2001 providing for a special compensation package for the employees.
\nThe said amount of compensation was to be paid to the workmen only in the
\nevent they had not opted for employment with the new owner.\n<\/p>\n
6. \tThe benefits provided for under the said Voluntary Retirement
\nScheme were stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“Terminal benefits
\n\tThe following benefits as statutorily due will
\nbe paid as per eligibility.\n<\/p>\n
i.\tThe balance in the P.F. Account payable as
\nper the CPF regulation.\n<\/p>\n
ii.\tCash equivalent of accumulated earned
\nleave as per the rules of the enterprise.\n<\/p>\n
iii.\tGratuity as per the provisions of the
\nPayment of Gratuity Act or other applicable
\nRules of the Organization.\n<\/p>\n
EXGRATIA BENEFITS\n<\/p>\n
i)\tAn employee who is regular or
\npermanent, whose request for VRS is
\naccepted would be entitled to an Ex-gratia
\npayment equivalent to One and Half months
\nemoluments (Pay + DA) last drawn, for each
\ncompleted year of service or the monthly
\nemoluments at the time of retirement
\nmultiplied by the balance months of service
\nleft before normal date of retirement
\nwhichever is less, subject to a minimum of
\nRs.30,000\/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only).
\nOne month\/three months notice pay, as per the
\nservice conditions applicable.”\n<\/p>\n
7.\tAppellants opted for voluntary retirement.  Indisputably, they were
\npaid the amount of special compensation in terms of the said G.O.
\nContending, however, that the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme did not
\nprovide for payment of lay off compensation, a writ petition was filed by the
\nUnion, which was marked as Writ Petition No. 16916 of 1998.  Before the
\nHigh Court, a contention was raised by the respondents herein that the
\nworkmen having taken voluntary retirement and the relationship of employer
\nand employee having ceased, the writ petition was not maintainable.  A
\nlearned single judge of the High Court, however, opined:
\n“Be that as it may, in the circumstances of this
\ncase, I am of the considered opinion that the
\npetitioner should approach the appropriate labour
\ncourt or the Industrial tribunal and work out its
\nremedies by way of a claim petition and by leading
\nappropriate evidence before the said court.  The
\npetitioner can raise all the questions, which are
\navailable to it, including those which have been
\nraised in this Writ Petition.  Therefore, the Writ
\nPetition is disposed of giving liberty to the
\npetitioner to approach the appropriate labour Court
\nor Industrial tribunal by filing an appropriate claim
\npetition.  On filing such a claim petition, the labour
\ncourt\/industrial tribunal shall entertain the same
\nand decide on merits within a period of six months
\nfrom the date of filing of such a petition.”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tPursuant to or in furtherance of the said observations, the workmen
\nfiled applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
\n(for short “the Act”) claiming lay off compensation for the period between
\n1.8.1995 to 6.9.2002.  The Labour Court, Guntur, did not entertain the said
\napplications holding that the same were not maintainable in view of a
\ndecision of this Court in A.K. Bindal and Another v. Union of India and
\nOthers<\/a> [(2003) 5 SCC 163] holding:\n<\/p>\n
“The workman under Sec. 33C(2) must be a
\nworkman under Sec. 2(s) of the I.D. Act.\n<\/p>\n
Under Sec. 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, there are
\nfour categories of workmen, 1) persons presently
\nemployed, 2) persons dismissed from service, 3)
\npersons discharged from service and 4) persons
\nretrenched from service.\n<\/p>\n
\tAll other persons do not come under Sec.\n<\/p>\n
2(s) of the I.D. Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tPersons retired from service, whether
\nvoluntarily or due to superannuation, persons left
\nthe service voluntarily and persons resigned from
\nthe service do not come under Sec. 2(s) of the I.D.
\nAct.  Those persons, even though they have got
\nany right to receive any amount or any benefit
\nfrom the employer for the work done by them are
\nnot entitled to file petition under Section 33-C(2)
\nof the I.D. Act.  Because they are not workmen
\nunder Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act.”\n<\/p>\n
A writ petition was preferred thereagainst, which was dismissed by a
\nlearned single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by an order dated
\n21.3.2005.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tMr. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\npetitioner would contend that the Labour Court and consequently the High
\nCourt committed a manifest error in passing the impugned orders insofar as
\nthey failed to take into consideration that the existing right of the workmen
\nfor obtaining the lay off compensation payable to them under the Industrial
\nDisputes Act, 1947 having nothing to do with the Voluntary Retirement
\nScheme and furthermore having regard to the directions of the High Court in
\nthe earlier Writ Petition, the proceedings under Section 33C(2) was
\nmaintainable.  Strong reliance in this behalf has been pressed on National
\nBuildings Construction Corporation v. Pritam Singh Gill & Ors.<\/a> [(1973) 1
\nS.C.R. 40].\n<\/p>\n
10.\tMr. R. Sundravardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe respondents, on the other hand, would contend that in view of the
\ndefinition of workman as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
\nAct, 1947, the workman having opted for voluntary retirement ceased to be
\nthe workman of the State and thus the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of
\nthe Act was rightly held to be not maintainable.
\n \tApart from relying on A.K. Bindal (supra), reliance has also been
\nplaced by Mr. Sundravardhan on a decision of the Bombay High Court in
\nPremier Automobiles Ltd. v. PAL VRS Employees Welfare Association &
\nAnr. [2002 (1) LLJ 527].\n<\/p>\n
11. \tSection 2(s) of the Act defines a workman to mean :
\n“2(s)\t“workman” means any person (including an
\napprentice) employed in any industry to do any
\nmanual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
\nclerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,
\nwhether the terms of employment be express or
\nimplied, and for the purposes of any proceeding
\nunder this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,
\nincludes any such person who has been dismissed,
\ndischarged or retrenched in connection with, or as
\na consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,
\ndischarge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,
\nbut does not include any such person –\n<\/p>\n
(i)\twho is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950
\n(45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the
\nNavy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\twho is employed in the police service or as
\nan officer or other employee of a prison; or\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\twho is employed mainly in a managerial or
\nadministrative capacity; or\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\twho, being employed in a supervisory
\ncapacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six
\nhundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the
\nnature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of
\nthe powers vested in him, functions mainly of a
\nmanagerial nature.”\n<\/p>\n
12. \tA literal meaning given to the said provision would indicate that the
\nworkmen have ceased to enjoy the protection conferred upon them under the
\nsaid Act.\n<\/p>\n
13. \tWould the workmen continue to be workmen for the purpose of filing
\nan application under Section 33C(2) of the Act is the question.\n<\/p>\n
14. \tBefore embarking on the said question, we may notice that the
\ncontention of Mr. Sundravardhan before us was that all the legal dues have
\nbeen paid to the workmen.  We are not concerned with the merit of the
\nmatter; maintainability of the application under Section 33C(2) being in
\nissue.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThere cannot be any doubt whatsoever that ordinarily upon opting for
\na voluntary retirement under a Scheme framed in that behalf, the workmen
\nwould cease to have any claim against the management.  However, the same
\nprima facie in our opinion would not mean that a statutory right of opting for
\nlay off compensation, unless expressly waived, may continue to remain
\nwithin the realm of legal right, so as to enforce the same before a forum
\nconstituted under the Act.   The Bombay High Court in Premier
\nAutomobiles Ltd. (supra) as also this Court in A.K. Bindal (supra)
\nproceeded on the basis that an employee having received the amount of
\ncompensation without any demur whatsoever would be estopped and
\nprecluded from raising any other or further claim stating:
\n“The employees accepted VRS with their eyes
\nopen without making any kind of protest regarding
\ntheir past rights based upon revision of pay scale
\nfrom 1.1.1992.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe said decision moreover proceeded on the basis that when the
\nparties enter into a transaction known as “golden handshake”, the jural
\nrelationship between the employer and the employee comes to an end.  It
\nwas opined:\n<\/p>\n
“After the amount is paid and the employee ceases
\nto be under the employment of the company or the
\nundertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there
\nis no question of his again agitating for any kind of
\nhis past rights with his erstwhile employer
\nincluding making any claim with regard to
\nenhancement of pay scale for an earlier period.  If
\nthe employee is still permitted to raise a grievance
\nregarding enhancement of pay scale from a
\nretrospective date, even after he has opted for
\nVoluntary Retirement Scheme and has accepted
\nthe amount paid to him, the whole purpose of
\nintroducing the Scheme would be totally
\nfrustrated.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe claim of the appellants in A.K. Bindal (supra) was based on the
\nrevision in the scale of pay.  It was in that context, the aforementioned
\nobservations were made.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThe question which fell for consideration before the Bombay High
\nCourt was as to whether the employees having opted for the Voluntary
\nRetirement Scheme can still ask for benefits under a settlement which were
\noverlapping with each other.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWhat was sought to be enforced in the said proceeding was the terms
\nof a settlement.  The Bombay High Court held:
\n“The terms and conditions of the said Scheme are
\nclear enough which show that the employees who
\nopted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme were to be
\nconsidered as relieved from services of the
\nCompany within a week from the date of their
\nletter of acceptance. According to the said Scheme,
\nit would come into force with effect from
\nDecember 20, 1991 and stood open till January 27,
\n1992.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe said decision, thus, was rendered in different fact situation.
\n\tIn Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. & Ors.<\/a> [(2008) 1
\nSCC 199], the Division Bench, inter alia, followed A.K. Bindar (supra).\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThe decision of this Court in National Buildings Construction
\nCorporation (supra) was not noticed in the aforementioned decision.  The
\nquestion which arose for consideration therein was as to whether a workman
\neven after an order of discharge could maintain an application under Section
\n33C(2) of the Act claiming lay off compensation, in response whereto this
\nCourt held:\n<\/p>\n
“In U.P. Electric Supply Co. v. R.K. Shukla<\/a> [AIR
\n1970 SC 237] this Court approvingly referred to a
\npassage from the judgment in Chief Mining
\nEngineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. (supra), already
\nreproduced by us, in which, inter alia, it was
\nemphasized that Labour Court had jurisdiction to
\nentertain a claim in respect of an existing right
\narising from the relationship of an industrial
\nworkman and his employer.  Again in R.B.\n<\/p>\n
Bansilal Abhirchand Mills Co. (P) Ltd. v. The
\nLabour Court, Nagpur [AIR 1972 S.C. 451] this
\nCourt, after a review of its previous decisions,
\nupheld the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to
\nentertain application for lay-off compensation
\nunder s. 33C observing that such jurisdiction could
\nnot be ousted by a mere plea denying the
\nworkman’s claim to computation of the benefit in
\nterms of money, adding that the Labour Court had
\nto go into the question and determine whether on
\nthe facts it had jurisdiction to make the
\ncomputation.”\n<\/p>\n
Noticing a large number of decisions of the High Courts on the said
\nsubject, this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“In order to remove this repugnancy s. 33C(2)
\nmust be so construed as to take within its fold a
\nworkman, who was employed during the period in
\nrespect of which he claims relief, even though he is
\nno longer employed at the time of the application.
\nIn other words the term “workman” as used in s.
\n33C(2) includes all persons whose claim, requiring
\ncomputation under this sub-section, is in respect of
\nan existing right arising from his relationship as an
\nindustrial workman with his employer.  By
\nadopting this construction alone can we advance
\nthe remedy and suppress the mischief in
\naccordance with the purpose and object of
\ninserting s. 33C in the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThe right of the workman to claim payment of lay off compensation is
\nnot denied or disputed.  If the said claim has no nexus with the Voluntary
\nRetirement Scheme, in our opinion, in a given case, like the present one, it is
\npossible to hold that a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Act would be
\nmaintainable.  We are, therefore, of the opinion that the question being one
\nof some importance should be considered by the larger Bench as there exists
\nan apparent conflict in the said decisions of National Buildings Construction
\nCorporation (supra) and A.K. Bindal (supra).
\nWe direct accordingly.  Let the records be placed before the Hon’ble
\nthe Chief Justice of India for passing appropriate orders.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Ors vs The Presiding Officer, Labour … on 29 April, 2008 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, V.S. Sirpurkar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3053 of 2008 PETITIONER: A. Satyanarayana Reddy and Ors RESPONDENT: The Presiding Officer, Labour Court,Guntur & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/04\/2008 BENCH: S.B. Sinha […]<\/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-99437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nA. Satyanarayana Reddy And Ors vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 29 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Ors vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 29 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-03T20:51:21+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Ors vs The Presiding Officer, Labour … on 29 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-03T20:51:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2521,\"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\\\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008\",\"name\":\"A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Ors vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 29 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-03T20:51:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Ors vs The Presiding Officer, Labour … on 29 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Ors vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 29 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Ors vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 29 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-03T20:51:21+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Ors vs The Presiding Officer, Labour … on 29 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-03T20:51:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008"},"wordCount":2521,"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\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008","name":"A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Ors vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 29 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-03T20:51:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-satyanarayana-reddy-and-ors-vs-the-presiding-officer-labour-on-29-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. Satyanarayana Reddy And Ors vs The Presiding Officer, Labour … on 29 April, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/99437","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=99437"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99437\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}