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
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
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
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 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.
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
Explore other courts