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.

Case disposed

REF IT - REFERENCE I.T.

CNR: GJAH170001882021

Filing Number

84/2021

Filing Date

13-Aug-2021

Registration No

84/2021

Registration Date

13-Aug-2021

Court

INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD

Judge

5-Member, Industrial Court

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NAVANITKUMAR HARGOVANBHAI NAYAK

    Adv. L

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRINCIPAL, CORDET KALOL IFFCO UNIT Advocate - L

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    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.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Member, Industrial Court

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    For award

    Member, Industrial Court

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    For award

    Member, Industrial Court

  6. 07-Feb-2026

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  7. 03-Jan-2026

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  8. 03-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  9. 12-Nov-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  10. 08-Oct-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  11. 03-Sep-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  12. 05-Aug-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  13. 08-Jul-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  14. 10-Jun-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  15. 06-May-2025

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  16. 01-Apr-2025

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  17. 04-Mar-2025

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  18. 04-Feb-2025

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  19. 07-Jan-2025

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  20. 10-Dec-2024

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  21. 05-Nov-2024

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  22. 08-Oct-2024

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  23. 10-Sep-2024

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  24. 08-Aug-2024

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  25. 04-Jul-2024

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  26. 06-Jun-2024

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  27. 04-May-2024

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  28. 06-Apr-2024

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  29. 02-Apr-2024

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  30. 02-Mar-2024

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  31. 01-Feb-2024

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  32. 10-Jan-2024

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  33. 06-Dec-2023

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  34. 01-Nov-2023

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  35. 04-Oct-2023

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  36. 04-Sep-2023

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  37. 07-Aug-2023

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  38. 05-Jun-2023

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  39. 03-Apr-2023

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  40. 07-Mar-2023

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  41. 03-Jan-2023

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  42. 01-Nov-2022

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  43. 06-Sep-2022

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  44. 05-Jul-2022

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  45. 10-May-2022

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  46. 01-Feb-2022

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  47. 04-Jan-2022

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  48. 07-Dec-2021

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  49. 02-Nov-2021

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  50. 05-Oct-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  51. 13-Aug-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 84/2021

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case