NAVANITKUMAR HARGOVANBHAI NAYAK vs PRINCIPAL, CORDET KALOL IFFCO UNIT Advocate - L — 84/2021
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 12th March 2026.
REF IT - REFERENCE I.T.
CNR: GJAH170001882021
Filing Number
84/2021
Filing Date
13-08-2021
Registration No
84/2021
Registration Date
13-08-2021
Court
INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD
Judge
5-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NAVANITKUMAR HARGOVANBHAI NAYAK
Adv. L
Respondent(s)
PRINCIPAL, CORDET KALOL IFFCO UNIT Advocate - L
Hearing History
Judge: 5-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Disposed
For award
For award
For Evidence of Second party
For Evidence of Second party
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | For award |
| 07-03-2026 | For award |
| 07-02-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
| 03-01-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad dismissed the Reference (IT) No. 84/2021 filed by worker Navneet Kumar Hargovanbhai Nayak against Principal, Cordite Kalol IFCO. The tribunal found that the worker failed to substantiate his claims through adequate oral or documentary evidence, and consequently could not establish his right to permanent status or back wages despite a prior settlement award from 2017. The tribunal ruled that since the worker did not discharge his burden of proof as required under civil law principles, the reference was rejected, though the worker retains the right to appeal within the prescribed time limits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad dismissed the Reference (IT) No. 84/2021 filed by worker Navneet Kumar Hargovanbhai Nayak against Principal, Cordite Kalol IFCO. The tribunal found that the worker failed to substantiate his claims through adequate oral or documentary evidence, and consequently could not establish his right to permanent status or back wages despite a prior settlement award from 2017. The tribunal ruled that since the worker did not discharge his burden of proof as required under civil law principles, the reference was rejected, though the worker retains the right to appeal within the prescribed time limits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts