SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Tuesday, January 07, 2025

Printed For: Ms. UNNAM LAW FIRM .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2022 SCC OnLine AP 1043 : (2022) 3 ALD 625 : (2022) 4 ALT

173 : (2022) 2 AmLJ 444

In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

(BEFORE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.)

Executive Engineer, BRR Vamsadhara Project and

Another … Petitioners;
Versus
Jogi Ramulu and Others … Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 22498 of 2021
Decided on April 22, 2022
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for the petitioners : G.P. for Services-II
Counsel for the respondents : Sri. V. Sudhakar Reddy for 1st
respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.:— Heard learned Government Pleader for
Services-III for the petitioners and Sri. V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned
st
counsel for the 1 respondent. The respondents 2 and 3 are the
authorities who have passed the orders under challenge.
2. Learned Government Pleader for the petitioners submits that the
st
1 respondent herein was initially appointed as Nominal Muster Roll
(NMR) Man Mazdoor in the year 1972. He worked up to June, 1984 and
thereafter his services were terminated against which he approached
the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D. No.
51 of 1991 in which the award dated 25.09.1996 was passed directing
the petitioners herein to reinstate the first respondent into duty within
two months. Challenging the said award, the petitioners filed the Writ
Petition No. 13371 of 1997 which was dismissed on 14.07.2003.
Thereafter, the first respondent was reinstated into duty. Again his
services were terminated on 05.01.2005. Challenging the said action,
st
the 1 respondent filed Writ Petition No. 1498 of 2005 which was
disposed of vide judgment dated 31.03.2010 directing the petitioners
herein to consider him for regularization. Alleging disobedience of the
order dated 31.03.2010, the 1st respondent filed C.C. No. 1373 of 2011
in which the petitioners have filed their response. The first respondent
retired on 31.01.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation.
3. After his retirement, the first respondent filed P.G. No. 1 of 2015
before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Srikakulam under the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Tuesday, January 07, 2025
Printed For: Ms. UNNAM LAW FIRM .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act 1972”) for payment
of gratuity of Rs. 2,05,962/- in which the petitioners filed their written
statement inter alia stating that the 1st respondent was not entitled for
payment of any gratuity. However, the Assistant Commissioner of
rd
Labour, Srikakulam-3 respondent passed the award dated 20.08.2017
directing the first petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs. 2,05,962/-
to the 1st respondent together with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum from the date of retirement. The award was challenged by the
petitioners in P.G.F.A. No. 1 of 2019 which was dismissed by the
appellate authority under the Act, 1972 and the Deputy Commissioner
nd
of Labour (FAC), Srikakulam-2 respondent, vide order dated
01.06.2020.
4. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed for the following
reliefs:
“It is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
issue a Writ of Certiorari and call for the record relating to P.G. No.
rd
01 of 2015 dated 28.03.2017 passed by the 3 respondent and
further confirmed in PGFA No. 1 of 2019 dated 01.06.2020 by the
2nd respondent and to quash or set aside the same by holding as
erroneous and contrary to the provisions payment of Gratuity Act,
1972.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Irrigation
Department is not an establishment under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act,
1972. He further submits that the 1st respondent hereinbeing Nominal
Muster Roll (NMR) is not an employee under Section 2(e) of the Act,
1972. Consequently the first respondent is not entitled to the payment
of any gratuity under the Act, 1972. The orders under challenge
deserve to be quashed. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Somdutt
1
Sharma .
6. Sri. V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent
submits that the Irrigation Department is an ‘establishment’ within the
meaning of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, 1972. He further submits that
the first respondent is an “employee” within the meaning of Section 2
st
(e) of the Act, 1972. Consequently, the 1 respondent is entitled for
payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Act, 1972. There is no
illegality in the orders impugned in the writ petition. He has placed
reliance on the judgments in the cases of State of Punjab v. Labour
Court Jullunder2 and Nihal Ahmed Sidiqi v. Bharat Heavy Electricals
3
Ltd., Hyderabad , in support of his contentions.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Tuesday, January 07, 2025
Printed For: Ms. UNNAM LAW FIRM .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned

counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. In view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for
the parties, the following points arise for consideration:—
i) Whether the Irrigation Department is an ‘establishment’ under
Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, 1972?
ii) Whether the 1st respondent on Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) Man
Mazdoor, is an “employee” within the meaning of Section 2(e) of
the Act, 1972?
iii) Whether the impugned orders call for any interference in the
exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India?
9. To decide the first point, it is relevant to reproduce Section 1(3)
(b) of the Act, 1972, which defines “establishment” as under:—
Section.1
Short title, extent, application and commencement.
(1) ……………….
(2) ……………….
(3) It shall apply to-
(a) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway
company;
(b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of
any law for the time being in force in relation to shops
and establishments in a State, in which ten or more
persons are employed, or were employed, on any day
of the preceding twelve months;
(c) …………….
(3A) A shop or establishment to which this Act has become
applicable shall continue to be governed by this Act notwithstanding
that the number of persons employed therein at any time after it has
become so applicable falls below ten.]
(4)…………”
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that “any law for the
time being in force in relation to Shops and Establishments in a State”
as used in Clause (b), in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh, would
refer to the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1988” (In short, “the
Act, 1988”) which defines “Establishment” under Section 2(10) of the
Act, 1988 as under:
Section 2 definitions:—
In this Act unless the context otherwise requires:—
“(10).Establishment’ means a shop, restaurant, eating-house,
residential hotel, lodging house, theatre or any place of public
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Tuesday, January 07, 2025
Printed For: Ms. UNNAM LAW FIRM .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

amusement or entertainment and includes a commercial

establishment and such other establishment as the Government
may by notification, declare to be an establishment for the
purposes of this Act.”
Based on the aforesaid definition, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the Irrigation Department is neither a
shop as defined under Section 2(21) nor is a restaurant, eating
house, residential hotel, lodging, lodging house, theatre as
defined in Section 2(22), or any place of public amusement or
entertainment nor a Commercial Establishment as defined
under Section 2(5) of the Act, 1988. He submits that any
notification by the State Government to declare the Irrigation
Department as an establishment, has also not been issued.
Consequently, the Irrigation Department is not an
establishment under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, 1972.
11. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners based on Section 2(10) of the Act, 1988 deserves rejection
as being without any substance.
12. A bare reading of the Clause (b) of Sub Section (3) of Section 1
of the Act, 1972 shows that the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies
to every shop or “establishment” within the meaning of any law for the
time being in force in relation to Shops and Establishment in a State in
which 10 or more persons are employed or were employed on any day
of the preceding twelve months.
13. The expression “Law” as used in Section 1(3)(b) of the Act,
1972, was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of
Punjab (supra), in which it has been held that the expression “law”, in
the expression “any law for the time being in force in relation to the
Shops and Establishment in a State” under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act,
1972 is comprehensive in its scope, and can mean, a law in relation to
shops as well as separately, a law in relation to establishments, or a law
in relation to shops and commercial establishments, and a law in
relation to non commercial establishments. It was further held that
Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, 1972 applies to every establishments within
the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to
establishments in a State. Such an establishment would include an
Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Section 2(ii) of the
Payment of Wages Act. It was further held that the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972, shall apply to an establishment in which any work relating to
construction, development or maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges
or canals or relating to operations connected with navigation irrigation
or the supply of water or relating to the generation, transmission and
distribution of electricity or any other form of power is being carried on.
14. Paragraph 3 of State of Punjab (supra) is reproduced as under:
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Tuesday, January 07, 2025
Printed For: Ms. UNNAM LAW FIRM .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“3. In this appeal, the learned Additional Solicitor-General

contends on behalf of the appellant that the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 cannot be invoked by the respondents because the Project
does not fall within the scope of Section 1(3) of that Act. Section 1
(3) provides that the Act will apply to:
“(a) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway
company;
(b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for
the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments
in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were
employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months;
(c) such other establishments or class of establishments, in which
ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on
any day of the preceding twelve months, as the Central
Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.”
According to the parties, it is clause (b) alone which needs to be
considered for deciding whether the Act applies to the Project. The
Labour Court has held that the Project is an establishment within the
meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, section 2(ii)(g) of which
defines an “industrial establishment” to mean an “establishment in
which any work relating to the construction, development or
maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or canals, or relating to
operations connected with navigation, irrigation or the supply of
water, or relating to the generation, transmission and distribution of
electricity or any other form of power is being carried on.” It is urged
for the appellant that the Payment of Wages Act is not an enactment
contemplated by section 1(3)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The
Payment of Wages Act, it is pointed out, is a central enactment and
section 1(3)(b), it is said, refers to a law enacted by the State
Legislature. We are unable to accept the contention. Section 1(3)(b)
speaks of “any law for the time being in force in relation to shops
and establishments in a State.” There can be no dispute that the
Payment of Wages Act is in force in the State of Punjab. Then, it is
submitted, the Payment of Wages Act is not a law in relation to
“shops and establishments”. As to that, the Payment of Wages Act is
a statute which, while it may not relate to shops, relates to a class of
establishments, that is to say, industrial establishments. But, it is
contended, the law referred to under section 1(3)(b) must be a law
which relates to both shops and establishments, such as the Punjab
Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958. It is difficult to
accept that contention because there is no warrant for so limiting the
meaning of the expression “law” in section 1(3)(b). The expression is
comprehensive in its scope, and can mean a law in relation to shops
as well as, separately, a law in relation to establishments, or a law in
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Tuesday, January 07, 2025
Printed For: Ms. UNNAM LAW FIRM .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

relation to shops and commercial establishments and a law in

relation to noncommercial establishments. Had section 1(3)(b)
intended to refer to a single enactment, surely the appellant would
have been able to point to such a statute, that is to say, a statute
relating to shops and establishments, both commercial and non-
commercial. The Punjab Shops & Commercial Establishments Act
does not relate to all kinds of establishments. Besides shops, it
relates to commercial establishments alone. Had the intention of
Parliament been, when enacting section 1(3)(b), to refer to a law
relating to commercial establishments, it would not have left the
expression “establishments” unqualified. We have carefully
examined the various provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and
we are unable to discern any reason for giving the limited meaning
to section 1(3)(b) urged before us on behalf of the appellant.
Section 1(3)(b) applies to every establishment within the
meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to
establishments in a State. Such an establishment would
include an industrial establishment within the meaning of section
2(ii)(g) of the Payment of Wages Act. Accordingly, we are of opinion
that the Payment of Gratuity Act applies to an establishment in
which any work relating to construction, development or
maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or canals, or relating
to operations connected with navigation, irrigation or the
supply of water, or relating to the generation, transmission and
distribution of electricity or any other form of power is being carried
on. The Hydel Upper Bari Doab Construction Project is such an
establishment, and the Payment of Gratuity Act applies to it.”
15. Section 2(ka) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines
Industrial Establishment as under:
“(ka) “Industrial establishment or undertaking” means an
establishment or undertaking in which any industry is carried on :
Provided that where several activities are carried on in an
establishment or undertaking and only one or some of such activities
is or are an industry or industries, then-
(a) if any unit of such establishment or undertaking carrying on
any activity, being an industry, is severable from the other unit or
units of such establishment or undertaking, such unit shall be
deemed to be a separate industrial establishment or undertaking.”
16. Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines
‘industry’ as under:—
“(j) Industry” means any business, trade, undertaking,
manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling,
service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or
avocation of workmen.”
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Tuesday, January 07, 2025
Printed For: Ms. UNNAM LAW FIRM .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4
17. In Des Raj v. State of Punjab , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
the main functions of the Irrigation Department where subjected to the
Dominant nature test clearly come within the ambit of industry.
Paragraph 13 of Des Raj (supra) reads as under:
“13. The Administrative Report of the facts found by the High
Court in the instant case have attempted to draw out certain special
features. The legal position has been indicated in the earlier part of
our judgment. On the tests, as already laid down in the judgments,
we do not think these facts found in this case can take out the
Irrigation Department outside the purview of the definition of
‘industry’. We have already referred to the Dominant Nature test
evolved by Krishna Iyer, J. The main functions of the Irrigation
Department where subjected to the Dominant Nature test clearly
come within the ambit of industry. We have not been able to gather
as to why even six years after the amendment has been brought to
the definition of industry in section 2(j) of the Act the same has not
been brought into force. This Court on more than one occasion has
indicated that the position should be clarified by an appropriate
amendment and when keeping in view the opinion of this Court, the
law was sought to be amended, it is appropriate that the same
should be brought into force as such or with such further alterations
as may be considered necessary, and the legislative view of the
matter is made known and the confusion in the field is cleared up.”
18. The petitioners have not laid any foundation in the writ petition
nor it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the irrigation department in State of Andhra Pradesh discharges
regal or sovereign functions of the State, nor that applying the
‘Dominant nature test’ as laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa5, and applied in Des Raj (supra), the
main functions of the Irrigation Department in State of Andhra Pradesh
fall outside the purview of the definition of Industry.
19. Therefore, in view of the above pronouncement of law, the
Irrigation Department of State of Andhra Pradesh is also an ‘industry’
under Section 2(j) of the Act, 1947. It being an industry would be an
‘Industrial Establishment’ under Section 2(ka) of the Act, 1947 and in
view of the law laid down in the case of State of Punjab (supra) that
Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, 1972 applies to every establishment within
the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to
establishments in a State, including industrial establishment; and the
work of the Irrigation Department relating to the operations connected
with Irrigation supply of water, the ‘Irrigation Department’ in the State
of A.P. is also an ‘Establishment’ under Section 1(3)(b) of the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Tuesday, January 07, 2025
Printed For: Ms. UNNAM LAW FIRM .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. In Somdutt Sharma (supra), upon which reliance has been

placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners to submit that the
Irrigation Department is not an Industrial Establishment, the
expression ‘industrial establishment’ was under consideration in the
context of Section 25(L) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
21. Section 25(L) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines the
Industrial Establishment as under:
“25L. Definitions.- For the purposes of this Chapter-
(a) “Industrial Establishment” means-
(i) a factory as defined in clause (m) of section 2 of the
Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948);
(ii) a mine as defined in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section
2 of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952); or
(iii) a plantation as defined in clause (f) of section 2 of the
Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (69 of 1951);
(b) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (ii) of
clause (a) of section 2-
(i) in relation to any company in which not less than fifty-one
percent of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central
Government, or
(ii) in relation to any corporation [not being a corporation
referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 2]
established by or under any law made by Parliament, the
Central Government shall be appropriate Government.”
22. A perusal of the above definition of ‘industrial establishment’
shows that it is only for the purposes of Chapter-V of B of the I.D. Act.
23. According to Section 25(L)(a)(i), “Industrial Establishment”
means a factory as defined in Clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories
Act, 1948.
24. In Somdutt Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court recorded
that there was no finding that the Irrigation department was doing
manufacturing activity as provided in Sub Clause (k) of Section 2 of the
Factories Act; it was in the context of Section 25 L(a)(i) of Section 2(k)
of the Factories Act. The definition of “Industrial Establishment” under
Section 2(ka) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a wider definition
than under Section 25L of I.D. Act.
25. I am of the considered view that the Irrigation Department is an
industry covered under the expression ‘Industrial Establishment’ under
Section 2(ka) of the Act, 1947 and therefore it would also be an
“establishment” under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, 1972, in view of the
law laid down in State of Punjab (supra), even if it may not be an
industrial establishment under Section 25L for the purposes of Chapter-
V B of the I.D. Act.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Tuesday, January 07, 2025
Printed For: Ms. UNNAM LAW FIRM .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

st
26. Now coming to the next point whether 1 respondent is an
employee under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972 or not.
27. Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972 defines ‘employee’ as under:
“(e) “employee” means any person (other than an apprentice)
employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield,
plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi-
skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work,
whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, and
whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or
administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who
holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government
and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for
payment of gratuity.”
28. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st
respondent is not an employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of
st
the Act, 1972 as the 1 respondent is a Nominal Muster Roll (NMR).
29. The point is no more res integra as in the case of Nihal Ahmed
Sidiqui (supra), this Court held that the definition of the expression
“employee” in Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972 is liberal and in wide
terms. Any person employed on wages in any establishment or factory
to do any skilled, semi skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory,
technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are
express or implied is an employee. It was further held that the services
rendered by an employee on N.M.R. basis or on work-charged
establishment cannot be ignored completely for the purposes of
payment of gratuity by the establishment and for the services rendered
by an employee on NMR basis or on work charged establishment, he
earns a right to seek gratuity for the corresponding length of service
put up by him.
30. Paragraphs 15 to 17 of Nihal Ahmed Sidiqi (supra) are being
reproduced as under:
“15. When we look at the definition of the expression ‘employee’
as defined in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, one
would appreciate that that it is couched in very liberal and in wide
terms. Any person employed on wages in any establishment or
factory to do any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual,
supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such
employment are express or implied, he answers the definition of the
expression ‘employee’.
16. As per Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, Gratuity
becomes payable to such an employee on termination of his
employment after he has rendered continuous services for not less
than five years.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Tuesday, January 07, 2025
Printed For: Ms. UNNAM LAW FIRM .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) on his superannuation, or

(b) on his retirement or resignation, or
(c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease.
17. It therefore becomes imminently clear that for the service
rendered by an employee on Nominal Muster Roll basis or on Work-
charged establishment, he earns a right to receive gratuity for the
corresponding length of service put in by him. In the instant case,
the service rendered by the petitioners on NMR basis or work-
charged establishment could not have been ignored completely for
the purposes of payment of gratuity by BHEL, upon accepting their
offer to retire voluntarily.”
st
31. In view of the aforesaid, for the services rendered by the 1
respondent as NMR he is entitled for payment of gratuity.
32. Thus considered on point No. 1 it is held that the irrigation
department is an establishment under Section 1(3)(b) of the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972. On point No. 2 it is held that an employee is
entitled for gratuity under the provisions of the Act, 1972 even for the
services rendered by him as N.M.R. basis or on work charged
establishment. Accordingly, on point No. 3, it is held that the
impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality and call for no
interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
33. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
34. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also
stand closed.
———
1
2021 SCC OnLine SC 829

2
(1980) 1 SCC 4 : AIR 1979 SC 1981

3
(2013) 2 ALD 325

4
(1988) 2 SCC 537

5
(1978) 2 SCC 213

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.