DIVISONAL CONTROLLER GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALANPUR vs JAYANTIBHAI MANGALBHAI PARMAR — 28/2025
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33/2/B. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 29th April 2026.
APP IT - APPLICATION I.T.
CNR: GJAH170000562025
Filing Number
28/2025
Filing Date
05-02-2025
Registration No
28/2025
Registration Date
05-02-2025
Court
INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD
Judge
2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DIVISONAL CONTROLLER GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALANPUR
Adv. P F JHAVERI
Respondent(s)
JAYANTIBHAI MANGALBHAI PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Disposed
For Order
For Argument of opponent
For Argument of Applicant
For Evidence of opponent
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | For Order |
| 20-04-2026 | For Argument of opponent |
| 07-04-2026 | For Argument of Applicant |
| 30-03-2026 | For Evidence of opponent |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Industrial Tribunal rejected the worker's appeal challenging his dismissal from employment as a Helper at an ST Depot in Siddhpur. The court upheld the employer's decision to dismiss the worker, finding that the departmental inquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with statutory requirements under the Industrial Disputes Act Section 33(2)(b). The worker's dismissal order was affirmed, allowing the employer to proceed with the termination while providing one month's salary as mandated by law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Industrial Tribunal rejected the worker's appeal challenging his dismissal from employment as a Helper at an ST Depot in Siddhpur. The court upheld the employer's decision to dismiss the worker, finding that the departmental inquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with statutory requirements under the Industrial Disputes Act Section 33(2)(b). The worker's dismissal order was affirmed, allowing the employer to proceed with the termination while providing one month's salary as mandated by law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts