CADILA PHARMASCUTICALS LTD. vs PATEL SUNIL BHUPENDRABHAI Advocate - P J MAHARAJA — 213/2024
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33/2/B. Status: For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention. Next hearing: 17th July 2026.
APP IT - APPLICATION I.T.
CNR: GJAH170004512024
Next Hearing
17th July 2026
Filing Number
213/2024
Filing Date
17-09-2024
Registration No
213/2024
Registration Date
17-09-2024
Court
INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD
Judge
2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
CADILA PHARMASCUTICALS LTD.
Adv. P I SHAH
Respondent(s)
PATEL SUNIL BHUPENDRABHAI Advocate - P J MAHARAJA
Hearing History
Judge: 2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention
For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention
For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention
For Evidence of Applicant
For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-05-2026 | For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention |
| 18-04-2026 | For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention |
| 13-03-2026 | For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention |
| 12-02-2026 | For Evidence of Applicant |
| 31-01-2026 | For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 213/2024 Case: Approval Application 213/2024 under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33(2)(b) Petitioner: Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Respondent: Patel Sunil Bhupendrabhai (Employee), represented by union advocate P.J. Maharaja Outcome: The Industrial Tribunal (presided by Smt. Raziya Salimkhan Pathan, Chief Officer) dismissed the company's approval application. The tribunal found that Cadila Pharmaceuticals failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements under Section 33(2)(b), including issuance of proper charge sheets and domestic inquiry. The application was rejected as legally infirm and contrary to standing orders and natural justice principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 213/2024 Case: Approval Application 213/2024 under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33(2)(b) Petitioner: Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Respondent: Patel Sunil Bhupendrabhai (Employee), represented by union advocate P.J. Maharaja Outcome: The Industrial Tribunal (presided by Smt. Raziya Salimkhan Pathan, Chief Officer) dismissed the company's approval application. The tribunal found that Cadila Pharmaceuticals failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements under Section 33(2)(b), including issuance of proper charge sheets and domestic inquiry. The application was rejected as legally infirm and contrary to standing orders and natural justice principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts