Madras High Court
The Management Of Addison & Company ... vs The Presiding Officer on 14 March, 2019
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.03.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.No.29975 of 2017
& W.M.P.No.32492 of 2017
The Management of Addison & Company Limited
4, 8 & 19 Smith Road,
Chennai-600 002
Represented by its Company Secretary
Mr.M.P.MuthuKumaraswamy ....Petitioner
--Vs--
1.The Presiding Officer,
II Additional Labour Court,
Chennai-600 001
2.M.Abdul Slam
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for a writ of Certiorari calling for records connected with I.D.No.230 of 1998 and
quash the award dated 31.08.2017 passed by the 1st respondent i.e., The Presiding
Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ramasubramaniam
For Respondents : Mr.Balan Haridoss for R2
ORDER
The Management of Addison & Company Limited challenges an order of the 1st respondent/II Additional Labour Court, Chennai passed in Industrial Dispute No.230 of 1998 dated 31.08.2017.
2. Heard the detailed submissions of Mr.Ramasubramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Balan Haridoss, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The 2nd respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'employee') had joined the http://www.judis.nic.in services of the petitioner company in September 1987, as a typist/clerk. He was also 2 rending services as a store keeper. According to the management, he had submitted his resignation along with a medical certificate on 03.09.1997, requesting the petitioner to relieve him from their services. Prior to accepting the resignation letter, the petitioner had directed the employee to appear before the Company's Medical Officer. Since the employee did not appear before the Medical Officer, his resignation was accepted on 11.11.1997 and he was relieved from services with effect from 19.11.1997.
4. In the meanwhile, a legal notice was sent by the employee on 11.11.1997, raising an allegation that he had been forced to resign from service. This was contested by the management in its reply to the legal notice, wherein they state that the resignation was wholly voluntary.
5. The employee thereafter filed a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the proceedings had, after detailed hearing of both parties, culminated in an award dated 23.02.2006 dismissing the petition filed by the employee.
6. The employee thereafter filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26056 of 2007 which came to be dismissed on 05.06.2012 affirming the award passed. As against the order, a writ appeal was filed in W.A.No.2631 of 2012. The writ appeal was heard by a Division Bench of this Court, that, vide order dated 25.07.2014 held as follows:
...consequently, the entire matter needs to be decided by the Labour Court afresh by treating the case as the one or termination of service and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law.
7. It is relevant to state that this order in Writ Appeal has become final, at the instance of both the management as well as the employee. Though a review application was filed in Review Application No.97 of 2015 challenging the aforesaid http://www.judis.nic.in order, the same also came to be dismissed on 23.09.2016. Thus, the order in 3 W.A.No.2631 of 2012, passed by the Division Bench to the effect that the cessation of service shall be considered as termination of service has become final. The matter was remitted back to the Labour Court to be decided on merits and in accordance with law, solely on the premise of the aforesaid finding.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 29.12.2017 in remand proceedings, wherein, at paragraph no.10, he specifically averred that he had been without employment for the entire period from date of termination till date and that he is living without any employment, in penury. Curiously, the Management did not choose to file any document before the Labour Court, stating that it would not let in any fresh evidence and will only substantiate its case through the evidence of Mr.A.C.M.Rajkumar, examined as management witness. The Management stated:
In the circumstances, the respondent herein chosen not to let in any fresh evidence and substantiate their case through the evidence of Mr.A.C.M.Rajkumar referred to above. Further the persons who were working at that time either left the company or retired from services. Hence the Respondent decided to rely on the evidence as it is available on the record.
9. The impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent on 31.08.2017. A detailed examination of the facts has been undertaken by the Labour Court. At paragraph 16, the labour court finds that the medical certificate was a document fabricated by the Management. The certificate had some insertions in english that were in a different handwriting and the signature of the employee in the certificate did not match his in the letter of resignation.
10. Learned counsel for the management counters pointing out that several portions of the impugned order are nothing but an extract, verbatim, of the claim petition filed by the employee. Be that as it may, the order of the 1 st respondent to the effect that the medical certificate annexed to the letter of resignation was http://www.judis.nic.in 'cooked-up' by the management has not been challenged in this writ petition. The 4 relevant portion of the conclusions of the Labour Court are extracted hereunder:
15. This Court further understands that even assuming without conceding that the resignation has been given voluntarily and that the same has been accepted legally it has not been accepted by the Competent Authority and hence the acceptance is not an acceptance at all and on that count also him is deemed to continue in service.
16. This Court further understands that the details about the Medical Certificate is in English which is in some other handwriting. The signature of Abdul Salam is in English in the Medical Certificate and the same is not matching with the signature in the resignation letter. The date in the Medical Certificate is different. The signature which is received from the petitioner in the resignation letter is written in Tamil and also in English. On verification the English handwriting i.e. the English signature made by the petitioner does not tally with the signature made in the Medical Certificate in the left corner of the resignation letter and the variation of the signature and the endorsement clearly makes this Court to understand and come to a conclusion that it is a cooked up document or cooked up the endorsement in favour of the management. Hence the termination of the petitioner is thus void abinitio and he is deemed to continue in service with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. The petitioner has attained superannuation and hence he is entitled to other reliefs without reinstatement and these point are answered accordingly.
17. In the result, the Industrial Dispute is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to pay backwages and continuity of service and all other attendant benefits to the petitioner from the date of termination i.e. 19.11.1997 till the date of superannuation. No costs.
11. The 1st respondent has proceeded to award full back wages with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits and in the light of the superannuation of the petitioner in September 2015, has quantified the aforesaid amount, for a period effective from 11.11.1997, till date of superannuation. The detailed submissions of learned counsel on behalf of the management revolve solely upon the quantification of back wages.
http://www.judis.nic.in
12. According to learned counsel for the management, the quantification of the back wages in full at 100% is incorrect. He would labour on the position that the 5 quantification ought to have been made with reference to the particular facts and circumstances of the case in issue and the impugned order of the Labour Court does not indicate application of mind to the specific facts and circumstances. In this regard, he refers to the following cases:
(i) Hindustan Tin workers Pvt Ltd Vs. The Employees of Hindustan Tin Workers Pvt. Ltd and Others [Reported in (1979) 2 SCC 80];
(ii) Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Another [Reported in (2002) 6 SCC 41];
(iii) Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. S.Mani and Others [Reported in (2005) 5 SCC 100];
(iv) Allahabad Jal Sansthan Vs. Daya Shankar Rai and Another [Reported in (2005) 5 SCC 124];
(v) General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh [Reported in (2005) 5 SCC 591];
(vi) Municipal Council Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar [Reported in (2006) 5 SCC 173];
(vii) Haryana State Electronics Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Mamni [Reported in (2006) 9 SCC 434];
(viii) State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Reshma Ramesh Meher and Another [Reported in (2008) 8 SCC 664];
(ix) Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Shyam [Reported in (2008) 13 SCC 248].
13. Per contra, Mr. Balan Haridas, reiterates the facts as found by the Labour court and emphasises the position that the employee is without any job since November 1997. He points out that the facts have attained finality. The finding of the Division Bench that the cessation of service was by reason of termination, has been accepted by the management that did not choose to challenge the same by way of special leave to the Supreme Court. Likewise, the finding of the Labour Court to the http://www.judis.nic.in effect that the medical certificate was 'cooked-up' has also been final and has not 6 been challenged. Learned counsel also relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Others [(2013) 10 SCC 324].
14. Having heard both learned counsels, my conclusions are as follows:
The facts are more or less admitted and I am thus inclined to consider the factual position from the perspective of the orders passed in Writ Appeal and by the Labour Court, both of which have attained finality, on facts. The Division Bench has confirmed that the cessation is to be treated as a termination at the instance of the management and has remanded the matter for decision on merits, only based on the aforesaid premise. This finding has become final.
15. Then again, the Labour Court has also categorically found that the medical certificate that was annexed to the alleged letter of resignation was itself cooked-up by the management. This factual finding has also not been challenged in the present writ petition. The submissions made also turn entirely on the quantification of back wages and I have to consider this submission in the background of the admitted factual matrix as noticed by me above. According to the management, awarding 100% as back wages is not appropriate and a lesser amount ought to have been awarded by the court. In fact, the entire attempt of the management is only to persuade the court to reduce the quantum of back wages awarded to a percentage less than 100%. The series of judgements referred to illustrate the approach of the courts and the evolution of the law in the context of payment of back wages over the years.
16. In Hindustan Tin Workers Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the Court was concerned with the case of an ailing company. In that context, the quantum of back wages was http://www.judis.nic.in reduced from 100 per cent to 75 per cent. The relevant portion of the judgment is as 7 follows:
11. In the very nature of things there cannot to a straight jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. At that stage the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. But the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for exercising discretion must be cogent and convincing and must appear on of the face of. the record. When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authority, that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice? according to law and not humor. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular (See Susannah Sharm v.Workfild(4)).
12. It was, however, very strenuously contended that as the appellant company is suffering loss and its carry-
forward loss as on 31st March 1978 is Rs. 8,12,416.90, in order to see that the industry survives and the workmen continue to get employment, there must be come sacrifice on the part of workmen. If the normal rule in a case like this is to award full back wages, the burden will be on the appellant-employer to establish circumstances which would permit a departure from the A normal rule. To substantiate the contention that this is an exceptional case for departing from the normal rule it was stated that loss is mounting up and if the appellant is called upon to pay full back wages in the aggregate amount of Rs. 2,80,0OO/-, it would shake the financial viability of the company and the burden would be unbearable. More. Often when some monetary claim by the workmen is being examined, this financial inability of the company consequent upon the demand being granted is voiced. Now, undoubtedly an industry is a common venture, the participants being the capital and the labour. Gone arc the days when labour was considered a factor of production. Article 43A of the Constitution requires the State to take steps to secure the participation of workmen in the management of the undertaking, establishments or other organisations engaged in any industry. Thus, from being a factor of production the labour has become a partner in industry. lt is a common venture in the pursuit of desired goal.
17. Now, undoubtedly the appellant appears to have turned the corner. The industrial unit is looking up. It has http://www.judis.nic.in started making profits. The workmen have already been reinstated and therefore, they have started earning their wages. It may, however, be recalled that the appellant has 8 still not cleared its accumulated loss. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case it would be appropriate to award 75% of the back wages to the workmen to be paid in two equal instalments.
(emphasis by underlining, mine)
17. The default rule thus, is that full back wages are awarded, except if there are extenuating circumstances that would require/justify lowering of the amount.
Then again, in Hindustan Motors Ltd (supra), the quantum of back wages was reduced to 50 per cent on the specific finding by the Supreme Court that there was no application of mind to the question of back wages by the Labour Court. The relevant portion of the judgement reads as under:
16. As already noted, there was no application of mind to the question of back wages by the Labour Court.
There was no pleading or evidence whatsoever on the aspect whether the respondent was employed elsewhere during this long interregnum. Instead of remitting the matter to the Labour Court or High Court for fresh consideration at this distance of time, we feel that the issue relating to payment of back wages should be settled finally. On consideration of the entire matter in the light of the observations referred to supra in the matter of awarding back wages, we are of the view that in the context of the facts of this particular case including the vicissitudes of long drawn litigation, it will serve the ends of justice if the respondent is paid 50% of the back wages till the date of reinstatement. The amount already paid as wages or subsistence allowance during the pendency of the various proceedings shall be deducted from the back wages now directed to be paid. The appellant will calculate the amount of back wages as directed herein and pay the same to the respondent within three months, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The award of the Labour Court which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court stands modified to this extent. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.
18. The Supreme Court, in the case of Rudhan Singh (supra), undertook an analysis of the relevant factors that impact quantification of back wages, at http://www.judis.nic.in paragraph no.8 stating as follows:
98. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded.
A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment, i.e., whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment, namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors, which has to be taken into consideration, is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at his age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period, i.e., from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. Another important factor, which requires to be taken into consideration is the nature of employment. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.
19. In Surinder Kumar's case (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the position that the loss of economic benefit to the workman would be an important factor in determining the quantum of back wages to be paid. At paragraphs 12 & 13 the Bench states as follows:
12. The Labour Court and the High Court also proceeded wrongly on the premise that the burden of proof to establish non-completion of 240 days of work within a period of twelve months preceding the termination, was on the management. The burden was on the workman. (See U.P. State Brassware Corporation & Ors. v. Uday Narain Pandey, and State of M.P. v. Arjunlal Lal Rajak).
13. Equally well settled is the principle that the burden of proof, having regard to the principles analogus to http://www.judis.nic.in Section 106 of the Evidence Act that he was not gainfully employed, was on the workman. (See Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani).10
20.The aforesaid principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Mamni (supra) & Reshma Ramesh Mehar (supra).
21. In Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra), a Division Bench of the Supreme Court has taken a view in favour of the employee by holding at paragraph no.22 as follows:
22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.
22. After an analysis of various judgements a series of propositions have been culled out at paragraph 38, as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in
38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:11
38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages is the normal rule.
38.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors.
38.3. Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.
38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages.
However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages.
38.5. The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the http://www.judis.nic.in superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a 12 possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employers obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.
38.6. In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (P) Ltd. v. Employees.
38.7. The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.
23. The above cases have been taken into account by a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Phool Chand(dead) Through LRs in C.A.No.1756 of 2010, order dated 20.09.2018. A charge was laid against a workman regarding his continuous absence from work and was proved. Departmental enquiry had been held even earlier on the http://www.judis.nic.in ground of dereliction of duties on various occasions. The Labour Court conferred 13 punishment of removal from service to stoppage/forfeit of four annual grade increments without cumulative effect and had directed reinstatement of the workman in service with award of full back wages for the period of thirteen years. The Supreme Court, in the aforesatated facts, thought it fit to reduce the award of 100 % back wages to 50 %, stating at paragraph 11 that back wages could not be awarded as a matter of right to the workman. The conclusion in this case has to be seen in the context of those facts and cannot be applied as is to the facts and circumstances of the present case, which are entirely distinguishable, specifically that the charge against the Employee had been proved, whereas, in the present case the cession has been held to be a forced termination from service.
24. I now proceed to apply the guidelines set by the supreme court in Deepali Gundu Surwases' case to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The length of employment is 20 years. The termination is clearly and admittedly thrust upon the employee. There are no charges of any nature against the employee. His averment to the effect that he has been continuously unemployed has become final and the employer has not challenged this finding of fact.
25. The Division Bench in writ appeal has referred to the submissions of the employee at paragraph 8 reading as follows:
8. It is the case of the appellant that he had immediately retracted the said letter dated 03.09.1997 on the very next day by sending a letter dated 04.09.1997 under certificate of posting to the Management. In the said letter, the appellant has specifically stated that the letter dated 03.09.1997 was written by him as dictated by the Assistant Manager (Personal) and that he was forced to write such letter, since he was threatened to be handed over to Police, as if he had stolen the soap belonging to the respondent company. Therefore, the appellant by his letter http://www.judis.nic.in dated 04.09.1997, requested the Management not to act on the resignation letter dated 03.09.1997 as he was withdrawing the said letter.14
26. Learned counsel for the management submits that the genesis of the proceedings was the letter from the employee and this fact ought to count while quantifying the back wages. However, the finding of fact by the Division Bench of this Court is that the letter of resignation was extracted from the employee and was not voluntary. In fact, the Division Bench states as such in paragraph no.12 in the following terms:
12. Further, it is to be seen that even while filing the petition under Section 2A of the I.D.Act, before the labour Officer, the appellant has categorically stated that the resignation letter dated 03.09.1997 has been rescinded by the appellant on 04.09.1997 itself. This is evident from the averments contained at paragraph 4 of the above said claim petition. In the absence of such allegation or proof, there is no reason to disbelieve the letter dated 04.09.1997. This aspect was also not considered by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, once the appellant was able to establish that there was no voluntary resignation and on the other hand, the said letter dated 03.09.1997 was an in-voluntary one, there cannot be any doubt that the dispute would certainly fall within the scope of Section 2A of the I.D.Act, since relieving of the appellant against his wish, would amount to termination of service.
27. These facts have become final. The issuance of the letter by the employee cannot be held against him and will not impact the award by the labour court. In the light of the admitted position that the letter of resignation was thrust upon the employee and the medical certificate annexed to the letter was fabricated by the management, the conclusion of Labour Court that 100% of back wages is to be awarded, does not appear disproportionate or inappropriate.
28. The affidavit filed by the employee before the Labour Tribunal has been marked and while the management had every occasion to disprove the same, it did not chose to. The averment of the employee to the effect that he was out of employment is thus uncontroverted and not disproved by the management. http://www.judis.nic.in
29. Coming to the 'fitness' to be recorded by the Labour Court, though the 15 Officer has not stated specifically 'fitness to award full back wages' in so many words, the facts as noticed by the Officer would support his conclusion to such effect.
Such fitness can be clearly inferred in this case.
30. This writ petition is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed with no order as to costs.
14.03.2019 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order ska http://www.judis.nic.in 16 To The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai-600 001 http://www.judis.nic.in 17 DR.ANITA SUMANTH. J, ska W.P.No.29975 of 2017 & W.M.P.No.32492 of 2017 14.03.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in