SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1730167881768611895?t=xH7Qrl5eri-NMnaaDPQEmw&s=08 In W.P.No.32966 of 2019, the workmen have not been recruited through Employment Exchange and there is no By-law, fixing the cadre strength. The Apex Court, in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh v. K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao, 1996 (6) SCC 216, held that recruitment through Employment Exchange is not the only source. However, in a batch of cases, the workmen have been allowed to work for years together, allowing the deeming provision of Section 3 of the 1981 Act to apply. 23. In view of the same, we are of the view that the order of the Authority, as confirmed by the learned single Judge, is not to be interfered with, however, with certain modifications, as stated above, in view of the concession made by the learned counsel across the Bar. The modified order of this Court is expected to be implemented within the time stipulated in Paragraph 15 hereinabove. 24. Writ Appeals and Writ Petition are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.Nos.11976, 11977, 11983, 11984, 11986, 14434, 14439 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.33401 of 2019 are closed. Index : Yes/No (S.V.N.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) Internet : Yes/No 16-06-2023 Speaking / Non-speaking Order dixit

by · Published · Updated

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED::16-06-2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

W.A.Nos.1765,1766,1768,1769,1770 of 2019 & W.P.No.32966 of 2019

W.A.No.1765/2019 :

The Special Officer,
Salem District Central Co-operative Bank Limited,
Cherry Road,
Salem – 636 001. … Appellant

-vs-

1.State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Cooperatives,
Food and Consumer Protection,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.

2.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
170, E.V.R.Periyar High Road,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 010.

3.A.Singarvelu
4.R.Santhi
5.N.Madhu
6.A.Baskaran
7.R.Thirumoorthy
8.A.Ganesan
9.E.Mathivalagan
10.P.Sambu
11.T.Anandakumar
12.R.Venkatachalam … Respondents

Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 13.10.2017, passed in W.P.No.22441 of 2011, on the file of this Court.z
For Appellant : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan,
Senior Advocate,
for M/s.R.S.Jain Le Sadmar

For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr.P.Ganesan,
Govt.Advocate.

For Respondents 3 to 12 : Mrs.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan

COMMON JUDGMENT

(By S.Vaidyanathan,J.)
All these Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition have been filed against the order of the learned single Judge in confirming the order of the Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,1981, hereinafter called ”the 1981 Act”.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as ”the workmen” and ”the management”.
3. The workmen in these cases joined the services of the appellant/ management on various dates between 20.12.1991 and 23.01.1998 as Jewel Appraisers. On completion of 480 days of continuous service in less than 24 calendar months, the respondents/workmen approached the Authority under the 1981 Act, seeking permanent status, before the year 2000. On 31.10.2002, the Authority conferred permanent status to the workmen. This was questioned by the management in W.P.No.3274 of 2004 and this Court, by an order, dated 25.09.2008, set aside the order of the Authority in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Indian Overseas Bank v. Workmen, 2006 (3) SCC 729, and directed the Authority to ascertain as to whether the workmen fall within the norms that show the difference of work between the regular employees and the Jewel Appraisers and to reconsider the case of the workmen. The Authority, on 24.03.2010, in the light of the evidence let in by the parties, both verbal and documentary, and also the comparative table as laid down by the Apex Court, has granted permanent status to the workmen. The learned single Judge has confirmed the order of the Authority, holding that the workmen are entitled to permanent status and that the order of the Authority cannot be interfered with. Hence, these Appeals and the Writ Petition, at the instance of the management.
4. Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the management, has contended before this Court that the workmen have been appointed on temporary basis, receiving commission, and that they are employed on part-time basis. It is also contended that there are no prescribed working hours for the workmen to do the work and, depending upon the exigency of work, they will be called for, to work. Also, the Senior Counsel would submit that the workmen are paid only commission and they are not paid on par with regular employees. It is also his submission that there is no outer age limit i.e., the age of retirement and, hence, the workmen are not entitled to any relief. Finally, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the 1981 Act may be applicable to temporary employees and not to Jewel Appraisers, who are concerned in the present cases and employed on part-time basis.
5. Conversely, Mrs.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the workmen, would contend that it is no doubt true that the Supreme Court, in the cases of (i) Indian Overseas Bank v. Workmen, (2006) 3 SCC 729; (ii) Puri Urban Co-operative Bank v. Madhusudhan Sahu and Another, (1992) 3 SCC 323; and (iii) Indian Bank Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and Others, (2001) 3 SCC 36; has held that Jewel Appraisers are not workmen; but, the Supreme Court, in Indian Overseas Bank’s case, cited supra, has tabulated the nature of work of the regular employees and the Jewel Appraisers and the Court will have to see whether the Jewel Appraisers are discharging the work on par with the regular employees in order to include those workmen under the purview of regular employees. She further contends that the workmen, though have been designated as Jewel Appraisers, are asked to report for work at 10.00 a.m. and they will be in the Bank until 04.00 p.m., and that the contention of the management that the workmen will be paid commission is not correct. It is not as if the entire commission is directly paid by the customer to the workmen, but, at the end of the month, from the amount collected or deposited in the account of the bank, monthly wages are paid to the workmen, similar to regular employees. That apart, the workmen have been recruited through Employment Exchange, on fixing of regular hours of work and wages being paid on monthly basis. They have been given appointment orders, based on which they are engaged in the services. It is totally incorrect to contend that there is no control by the management over the nature of work of the workmen. They are subject to disciplinary action by the management. The workmen, after appraising the quality of the jewels, estimate the value and, thereafter, the jewels are stored in treasury. Further, the workmen have been issued with orders of transfer and they have been asked to work under various branches of the management Bank and various Agricultural Banks or Societies. The workmen are paid Provident Fund and Gratuity, apart from being governed by fixation of age of retirement as 58 years. Hence, according to the learned counsel, as the Authority has rendered a finding of fact, the Authority was right in conferring permanent status to the workmen, so also the learned single Judge in confirming the same.

6. Before going into various aspects of the matter, we would like to incorporate Section 3 of the 1981 Act and Section 2 (6) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act,1947, in short, ”the Shops Act,1947”, and also the Comparative Table, pointed out by the Supreme Court.
Section 3 of the 1981 Act :
”3. Conferment of permanent status to workmen.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, every workman, who is in continuous service for a period of four hundred and eighty days in a period of twenty four calendar months in an industrial establishment, shall be made permanent.

(2) A workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike, which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work, which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.

Explanation I.– For the purposes of computing the continuous service referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2), a workman shall be deemed to be continuous service during the days on which ; (i) he has been laid off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (Central Act XX of 1946) or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment ; (ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years; (iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment ; and (iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave ; so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.
Explanation II. – For the purposes of this section, ‘law’ includes any award, agreement, settlement, instrument or contract of service whether made before or after the commencement of this Act.”

Section 2 (6) of the Shops Act,1947 :
Section 2 (6) : ‘establishment´ means a shop. commercial establishment, restaurant, eating-house, residential hotel, theatre or any place of public amusement or entertainment and includes such establishment as the State Government may by notification declare to be an establishment for the purposes of this Act.

Comparative Table :
Regular Employees Jewel Appraisers
1.Subject to qualification and age prescribed 1.No qualification / age
2.Recruitment through Employment Exchange/Banking Service Recruitment Board 2.Direct engagement by the local Manager
3.Fixed working hours 3.No fixed working hours
4.Monthly wages 4.No guaranteed payment, only commission paid
5.Subjecto to disciplinary control 5.No disciplinary control
6.Control/supervision is exercised not only with regard to the allocation of work, but also the way in which the work is to be carried out. 6.No control/supervision over the nature of work to be performed
7.Wages are paid by the bank 7.Charges are paid by the borrowers
8.Retirement age 8.No retirement age
9.Subject to transfer 9.No transfer
10.While in employment cannot carry on any other occupation 10.No bar to carry on any avocation or occupation

7. A reading of the order of the Authority would make it very clear that two witnesses, namely, P.Ayyandurai and M.Arumugam, the Officers, who have retired from the management Bank, have tendered evidence. The said witnesses, who are examined as W.W.2 and W.W.3, have categorically stated that the workmen have fixed hours of work, apart from discharging the duties of the Bank. It is also stated that the job of the workmen is perennial in nature and substantial income is received by the Bank on sanctioning of loans, more-so by receiving jewels. It is further stated that the workmen have regular hours of work and been discharging work from 10.00 a.m. to 04.00 p.m. Apart from that, after working hours from 04.00 p.m. till 08.00 p.m., the workmen have to go and remind those persons, who have availed loans, to repay the amount borrowed. It is also deposed that there is a cadre strength in the Bank with regard to Jewel Appraisers. Though it has been stated by the management witness that these two witnesses have tendered evidence because disciplinary action has been taken against them, the Authority has categorically rendered a finding that there is no evidence produced by the management Bank to show that disciplinary action has been taken against these two officers/witnesses.
8. For ready reference, some of the excerpts from the evidence of W.W.2 and W.W.3 and the findings of the Authority to show that a substantial amount of income is derived by the Bank in sanctioning of loans are extracted below :

English translated versions of the above Tamil extracts are as under :
”The details of statement given by the second witness on 10.08.2009.
‘I, P.Ayyanthurai, S/o. Palaniappan, residing at Door No.34/D, Iyanarappan Koil Street, Peramanur Post, Salem Town, is a retired Manager in the Head Office of the respondent bank. As a Manager, I knew personally about the petitioner and other Jewel Appraisers and their nature of work. The services of the petitioners and other Jewel Appraisers are permanent. List was called for from Employment Exchange and appointments were given after interview. At the time of appointment, they were recruited as part-time and daily wage Jewel Appraisers, but, later, their service was changed as full time service. As other bank employees, the Jewel Appraisers also attend office from 10.00 AM to 04.00 PM. Apart from this, after 04.00 PM up to 08.00 PM, they remind the defaulters by door canvassing and collect the dues. Apart from jewel appraising, the petitioners/jewel appraisers also maintain all bank registers, receipts and other clerical works (regarding jewel loan).
The superannuation age of 58 for other bank employees is followed in respect of Jewel Appraisers also. There is usual practice to give a letter in written form prescribing the duties and responsibilities, superannuation and rules and regulations in respect of other employees, such as Clerk, Cashier and Manager, whereas no letter is issued to Jewel Appraisers. In the By-laws of the Bank, there is a cadre strength for Jewel Appraisers.
It is true that the work of appraising of jewels is a permanent job done between 10.00 AM and 04.00 PM on each day during the entire year and the jewel loan is the main item in the bank transactions of receipt and expenditure.’
The details of statement given by third witness on 25.08.2009.
‘I, M.Arumugam, S/o. Muthu Gounder, residing at Door No.139/73A, Anna Illam, Bharathiar Street, Peramanur Post, Salem Town, served as Manager in Head Office of the respondent bank and retired. As a Manager, I knew about the petitioners and other Jewel Appraisers and their nature of work. The services of the petitioners and other Jewel Appraisers are permanent. List was called for from Employment Exchange and appointments were given after interview. At the time of appointment, they were recruited as part-time and daily wage Jewel Appraisers, but, later, their service was changed as full time service.
As other bank employees, the Jewel Appraisers also attend office from 10.00 AM to 04.00 PM. Apart from this, after 04.00 PM up to 08.00 PM, they remind the defaulters by door canvassing and collect the dues. Apart from jewel appraising, the petitioners/jewel appraisers also maintain all bank registers, receipts and other clerical works (regarding jewel loan).
The superannuation age of 58 for other bank employees is followed in respect of Jewel Appraisers also. There is usual practice to give a letter in written form prescribing the duties and responsibilities, superannuation and rules and regulations in respect of other employees, such as Clerk, Cashier and Manager, whereas no letter is issued to Jewel Appraisers. In the By-laws of the Bank, there is a cadre strength for Jewel Appraisers.
It is true that the work of appraising of jewels is a permanent job done between 10.00 AM and 04.00 PM on each day during the entire year and the jewel loan is the main item in the bank transactions of receipt and expenditure.’
This case was remanded back to this Court for retrial for cross-examination of the witnesses. At present, full trial is undertaken.
Further, witnesses deposed clearly that the main function of the bank is giving jewel loans and, of all loans, 75% loans are jewel loans.
The superannuation of the petitioners is indicated in the Circular as 58 years as in the case of other bank employees and when the case was pending, two persons retired and got pensionary benefits.

9. Taking into account the Comparative Table of the Apex Court, the Authority has rendered a finding of fact and the same is extracted below :

English Translated versions of the above Tamil extracts are as under :
”In the appeal case of respondent, it is indicated in the order by Supreme Court in Indian Bank’s case that there was difference between regular employees and Jewel Appraisers and it should be examined for the purpose of making permanent.
The petitioners have been recommended through the Employment Exchange and on the basis of age and qualification they were appointed. In the absence of such requisite qualification, there is no possibility of their names being sponsored. The training for the Jewel Appraisers is derived by experience and training and without taking this into consideration, the statement that age and qualification have not been considered is not to be accepted.
The statement that the petitioners have been appointed directly is false. It is because they have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange as per the documents filed.
Even though the working hours have not been fixed, the entire bank work is the grant of jewel loan and it requires the presence of Jewel Appraisers. In the circumstances, the contention that the working hours have not been fixed is not relevant.
The contention is that monthly salary has not been fixed. Whether it is monthly salary or commission received from the debtors has not been proved with proper documents. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent has not proved the mode of payment beyond reasonable doubt and it is confirmed that the respondent is paying salary to the petitioners and hence the statement that monthly salary is not paid is only to deny the permanency benefits to the employees and it is an anti-labour attitude of the respondent. The commission for the estimate of the jewel is not paid directly to the estimator. The commission amount is credited to the bank account and is only paid subsequently by a voucher towards salary and, therefore, it is to be taken that the bank money is only paid to the estimator as salary and this has to be confirmed.
While joining the service, appointment orders (with some conditions) are issued and then only the petitioners are permitted to join. Therefore, the contention that the appointment was made without proper streamlining of function is not correct.
It is indicated that the Jewel Appraiser is not under the control of the management, but the jewels are taken from customers by the Manager and only through him it is given to the Jewel Appraisers to examine the quality and estimate and again stored in the treasury. Without taking this into account, to say that the Jewel Appraiser is not under the control of the management is not correct.
The petitioners have been given transfer orders. Jewels received in the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies are sent to check the quality and orders are issued to the Jewel Appraisers. Like other employees, Jewel Appraisers are granted Festival Advance and also PF is recovered. Hence, it is to be decided that they are permanent employees of the Bank.
The working hours of the Bank are from 10.00 AM to 04.00 PM. During this period, the Jewel Appraisers do not go to any other place for work. The statement that they are not prohibited as made out by the respondent is strange. It is because, after working till 04.00 PM in the Bank, whether they are able to work further in some other company and, without taking this into account, the argument is not tenable.”

10. The Authority has also rendered finding that apart from appraising the jewels, it is the duty of the workmen to ensure that the loans are recovered from the customers. Those loans have to be entered in the records and every month the records are to be tallied.
11. The workmen have joined the services after interview and production of Birth Certificate, Educational Qualification Certificates and Experience Certificate. After scrutinising those documents only, the workmen have been inducted into service. In addition, as could be seen from the order of the Authority, the workmen have produced documentary evidence to show that they have been transferred from one place to another. For example, one A.Genesan, s/o. Arumugam, has been transferred to four different branches and the number of days worked by him is also referred to. Similarly, other workers like T.Anandakumar, Sambu, Singaravelu have been transferred from one place to another. A.Chandrasekaran, one of the workmen, has also produced Ex.W-7 to show, that, on completion of 58 years of age, he has been relieved from service. If really there was no upper age limit, there was no need for the Management to issue the relieving order to the said workman.
12. The aforesaid analysis of evidence has been done in-depth by the Authority. As there is a finding rendered by the Authority, which is a finding of fact, and the same has been affirmed by the learned single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Authority, as confirmed by the learned single Judge.
13. During the course of arguments, W.P.No.32966 of 2019 has been directed to be tagged along with these appeals and the workmen therein are also placed on a similar pedestal. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Authority in the Writ Petition also.
14. Mrs.Ramapriya, learned counsel for the workmen, has submitted that except 26 workmen, all other workmen have since attained the age of superannuation and that they are willing to give up their entire back-wages, provided they are paid terminal benefits, such as, Gratuity, Pension, Provident Fund etc.
15. Taking note of the above submission and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Neethivalangan, Kumbakonam, 2001 (9) SCC 99, in order to avoid further round of litigation and the workmen approaching the Authority under Section 6 of the 1981 Act for prosecution, we direct the Management to make the status of the workmen permanent in respect of 26 workmen, whose names are mentioned below and who are in service, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and grant all terminal benefits minus back-wages, as aforementioned, in respect of the workmen, who have retired. Till such time the workmen are made permanent, they should be paid at least the wages applicable to an equivalent post. The names of 26 workmen are mentioned below :
Names of Workmen, who are currently in service in The Salem District Central Co-operative Bank – (Writ Appeals) :

1.A.Singaravelu
2.N.Madhu
3.A.Baskaran
4.R.Thirumoorthy
5.T.Anandakumar
6.R.Venkatachalam
7.A.Subramaniam
8.M.Sivakumar
9.P.Ponnusamy

Names of Workmen, who are currently in service in The Dharmapuri District Central Co-operative Bank – (Writ Petition) :
1.K.Saravanan
2.R.Tamilarasu
3.P.Gnaneswaran
4.S.Arasu
5.S.Gowri
6.S.Venkateswari
7.B.Rajappa
8.N.Srinivasa Reddy
9.D.Sitarasu
10.M.Abiraman
11.M.Harikumar
12.T.Sakthinathan
13.P.Selvi
14.M.Raja
15.M.Jagannathan
16.V.Tilak
17.M.Suresh Babu

16. The 1981 Act received the assent of the President of India on 05.08.1981. When it was introduced, it was made applicable to establishments, having 50 or more workers. Thereafter, it was extended to establishments, having workers of not less than 20, on any day preceding twelve months.
17. It is not in dispute that the employer/management in this case has employed not less than 20 workers. It is an establishment in terms of Section 2 (3) (e) of the 1981 Act, which defines the term ”establishment” as follows :
2. Definitions.— In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,– (3) “industrial establishment ” means— (e) an establishment as defined in clause (6) of section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXVI of 1947).
18. Section 2 (6) of the Shops Act,1947, has been legislatively incorporated into the 1981 Act. Hence, we reproduce Section 2 (6) of the Shops Act,1947, as under :
Section 2 (6) : ‘establishment´ means a shop. commercial establishment, restaurant, eating-house, residential hotel, theatre or any place of public amusement or entertainment and includes such establishment as the State Government may by notification declare to be an establishment for the purposes of this Act.
19. That apart, the employer/management herein is only a registered Society under the Co-operative Societies Act. Even assuming for the sake or argument that it is taken as a Bank, Section 4 (1) (c) of the Shops Act,1947, will not be applicable to the facts of this case. As stated supra, the definition of ”establishment” alone has been incorporated into the 1981 Act and not the entire Act. Since there is no exemption under Section 9 of the 1981 Act for this Bank, the 1981 Act alone is applicable to this case. The reason for referring to Section 4 (1) (c) of the Shops Act,1947, and Section 9 of the 1981 Act is that even the Central Government establishments, such as Railways and Khadi Departments, are amenable to the jurisdiction of the 1981 Act.

20. In the above connection, it would be apposite to refer to the Notifications, exempting certain establishments from the provisions of the 1981 Act, which are extracted below :
”Exemption of certain establishments from provisions of the 1981 Act I
KENDRIYA GARHI DEPOT, CENTRAL VEHICLE DEPOT,
AVADI, MADRS-55
(G.O.Ms.No.662, Labour, dated 4th April,1985)
No.II(2)/LAB2017/85.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,1981, (Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts the establishments under the control of Kendriya Garhi Depot, Central Vehicle Depot, Avadi, Madras-600 055, from all the provisions of the said Act.
II
SOUTHERN RAILWAY IN TAMIL NADU
(G.O.Ms.No.663, Labour, dated 4th April,1985)
No.II(2)/LAB/2018/85.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,1981, (Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts the industrial establishments under the control of Southern Railway in Tamil Nadu from all the provisions of the said Act.”
It is also relevant at this stage to notice Section 4 (1) (c) of the Shops Act,1947, granting exemption to certain establishments, which reads as under :
”4.Exemption.- (1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to —
(a) xxxxx
(b) xxxxx
(c) establishments under the Central and State Governments, local authorities, the Reserve Bank of India, a railway administration operating any railway as defined in clause (20) of Article 366 of the Constitution and cantonment authorities.”
There are no notifications by the Government, exempting Banks under Section 9 of the 1981 Act. Hence, the term ”establishment” under Central Government or State Government or Local Authority needs to be exempted under Section 9 of the 1981 Act. The Shops Act,1947, exempts Railway administration. If the entire Act has been incorporated, there is no reason for a separate notification under Section 9, exempting Railways.
21. The Apex Court, in C.V.Raman v. The Management of Bank of India, 1988 (3) SCC 105, has held that the Shops Act,1947, is not applicable to the Bank, as it is a commercial establishment under Section 2 (3) of the Shops Act,1947, and that Section 4 (1) (c) of the Shops Act,1947, exempts the Central Government establishments. It is not an authority for exemption under Section 9 of the 1981 Act.
22. In W.P.No.32966 of 2019, the workmen have not been recruited through Employment Exchange and there is no By-law, fixing the cadre strength. The Apex Court, in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh v. K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao, 1996 (6) SCC 216, held that recruitment through Employment Exchange is not the only source. However, in a batch of cases, the workmen have been allowed to work for years together, allowing the deeming provision of Section 3 of the 1981 Act to apply.
23. In view of the same, we are of the view that the order of the Authority, as confirmed by the learned single Judge, is not to be interfered with, however, with certain modifications, as stated above, in view of the concession made by the learned counsel across the Bar. The modified order of this Court is expected to be implemented within the time stipulated in Paragraph 15 hereinabove.

24. Writ Appeals and Writ Petition are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.Nos.11976, 11977, 11983, 11984, 11986, 14434, 14439 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.33401 of 2019 are closed.

Index : Yes/No (S.V.N.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
Internet : Yes/No 16-06-2023
Speaking / Non-speaking Order
dixit

You may also like...