DIVISONAL CONTROLLER GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALANPUR vs NARENDRAKUMAR MAHESHDAN AADHA — 267/2024
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33/2/B. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 29th April 2026.
APP IT - APPLICATION I.T.
CNR: GJAH170005782024
Filing Number
267/2024
Filing Date
22-10-2024
Registration No
267/2024
Registration Date
22-10-2024
Court
INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD
Judge
2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DIVISONAL CONTROLLER GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALANPUR
Adv. P F JHAVERI
Respondent(s)
NARENDRAKUMAR MAHESHDAN AADHA
Hearing History
Judge: 2-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Disposed
For Order
For Argument of opponent
For Argument of Applicant
For Evidence of opponent
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | For Order |
| 20-04-2026 | For Argument of opponent |
| 07-04-2026 | For Argument of Applicant |
| 24-03-2026 | For Evidence of opponent |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad approved an appeal (Approval Application No. 267/2024) challenging the dismissal of a permanent clerk employee from the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Palanpur division. The court found that the employer complied with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before terminating the employee's service, and therefore upheld the dismissal order while granting the employee one month's salary as compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad approved an appeal (Approval Application No. 267/2024) challenging the dismissal of a permanent clerk employee from the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Palanpur division. The court found that the employer complied with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before terminating the employee's service, and therefore upheld the dismissal order while granting the employee one month's salary as compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts