CADILA PHARMASCUTICALS LTD. vs RAKESH I VYAS Advocate - P J MAHARAJA — 220/2024

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: GJAH170004582024

For Hearing of Priliminary Point/Contention

Next Hearing

17th July 2026

Filing Number

220/2024

Filing Date

17-09-2024

Registration No

220/2024

Registration Date

17-09-2024

Court

INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD

Judge

2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33/2/B
Ia/1/2026 Classification : Preliminary Issue Section CADILA PHARMASCUTICALS LTD.RAKESH I VYAS

Petitioner(s)

CADILA PHARMASCUTICALS LTD.

Adv. P I SHAH

Respondent(s)

RAKESH I VYAS Advocate - P J MAHARAJA

Hearing History

Judge: 2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT

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

31-01-2026
ORDER

Summary of Case 220/2024 Petitioner: Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Respondent: Rakesh I. Vyas (Advocate - P.J. Maharaja) Court: Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad Outcome The petitioner's approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is DISMISSED/REJECTED. The tribunal found that the petitioner failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements—specifically, no charge sheet or notice was properly served on the employee before termination. Without proper documentation and domestic inquiry, the tribunal rejected the employer's request for court approval of the dismissal action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 220/2024 Petitioner: Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Respondent: Rakesh I. Vyas (Advocate - P.J. Maharaja) Court: Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad Outcome The petitioner's approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is DISMISSED/REJECTED. The tribunal found that the petitioner failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements—specifically, no charge sheet or notice was properly served on the employee before termination. Without proper documentation and domestic inquiry, the tribunal rejected the employer's request for court approval of the dismissal action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case