GUJARAT VIDHYUT KAMADAR UTKARSH MANDAL, KALOL vs SUPRETENDENT ENGINEER, UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD, AHMEDABAD — 174/2017
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 07th May 2026.
REF IT - REFERENCE I.T.
CNR: GJAH170006672017
Filing Number
174/2017
Filing Date
13-10-2017
Registration No
174/2017
Registration Date
13-10-2017
Court
INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD
Judge
5-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GUJARAT VIDHYUT KAMADAR UTKARSH MANDAL, KALOL
Respondent(s)
SUPRETENDENT ENGINEER, UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD, AHMEDABAD
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD, KALOL
SHREE G U MALEK, SUPRETENDENT ACCOUNTS, UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD, KALOL
GENERAL MANAGER, UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD, MAHESANA
Hearing History
Judge: 5-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Disposed
For award
For Evidence of Second party
For Evidence of Second party
For Evidence of Second party
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-04-2026 | For award |
| 11-03-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
| 04-02-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
| 07-01-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the worker's reference (IT No. 174/2017) against North Gujarat Vidyut Company Ltd., finding that the dismissal proceedings followed due process with proper notice and opportunity to defend. The tribunal held that the worker failed to substantiate claims through proper evidence and documentary proof presented during proceedings, and therefore the worker's claims for relief including reinstatement and compensation were rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the worker's reference (IT No. 174/2017) against North Gujarat Vidyut Company Ltd., finding that the dismissal proceedings followed due process with proper notice and opportunity to defend. The tribunal held that the worker failed to substantiate claims through proper evidence and documentary proof presented during proceedings, and therefore the worker's claims for relief including reinstatement and compensation were rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts