CHEMICAL MAJDUR PANCHAYAT vs MEGNA AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD. Advocate - D C GANDHI — 27/2023

Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Status: For Evidence of Second party. Next hearing: 18th May 2026.

For Evidence of Second party Next hearing 18-May-2026 this date has passed

REF IT - REFERENCE I.T.

CNR: GJAH170002172023

Filing Number

27/2023

Filing Date

17-Jul-2023

Registration No

27/2023

Registration Date

17-Jul-2023

Court

INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD

Judge

3-Member, Industrial Court

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHEMICAL MAJDUR PANCHAYAT

    Adv. L M PATIL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MEGNA AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD. Advocate - D C GANDHI

Case History

  1. 18-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 30-Apr-2026

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  3. 29-Apr-2026

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  7. 19-Jan-2026

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  8. 31-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  9. 19-Nov-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  10. 29-Oct-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  11. 01-Oct-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  12. 17-Sep-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  13. 03-Sep-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  14. 13-Aug-2025

    Order

    Court Order Summary The Industrial Tribunal (Court No. 4) at Ahmedabad dismissed the reference petition filed by the second respondent (union) seeking a mandatory interim order to prevent the company from transferring/selling machinery or dismissing workers during pending proceedings. The tribunal found that the petitioner lacked standing to seek such relief and that the requested order would fall outside the tribunal's jurisdictional scope under the ID Act, 1947. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  15. 13-Aug-2025

    For Evidence of Second party

    Member, Industrial Court

  16. 30-Jul-2025

    For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention

    Member, Industrial Court

  17. 08-Jul-2025

    For w.s. of First party

    Member, Industrial Court

  18. 19-Jun-2025

    For w.s. of First party

    Member, Industrial Court

  19. 11-Jun-2025

    For w.s. of First party

    Member, Industrial Court

  20. 29-Apr-2025

    For w.s. of First party

    Member, Industrial Court

  21. 25-Feb-2025

    For w.s. of First party

    Member, Industrial Court

  22. 20-Jan-2025

    For w.s. of First party

    Member, Industrial Court

  23. 04-Nov-2024

    For w.s. of First party

    Member, Industrial Court

  24. 17-Sep-2024

    For w.s. of First party

    Member, Industrial Court

  25. 23-Jul-2024

    For w.s. of First party

    Member, Industrial Court

  26. 14-May-2024

    For Statement of Claim

    Member, Industrial Court

  27. 12-Mar-2024

    For Statement of Claim

    Member, Industrial Court

  28. 23-Jan-2024

    For Statement of Claim

    Member, Industrial Court

  29. 05-Dec-2023

    For Statement of Claim

    Member, Industrial Court

  30. 10-Oct-2023

    For Notice Serve to both partys

    Member, Industrial Court

  31. 29-Aug-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 17-Jul-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 27/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Court Order Summary The Industrial Tribunal (Court No. 4) at Ahmedabad dismissed the reference petition filed by the second respondent (union) seeking a mandatory interim order to prevent the company from transferring/selling machinery or dismissing workers during pending proceedings. The tribunal found that the petitioner lacked standing to seek such relief and that the requested order would fall outside the tribunal's jurisdictional scope under the ID Act, 1947. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case