Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor SanghAhmedabad vs ONGC Ltd. Ahmedabad — 233/2025
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 02nd May 2026.
REF-ITC - REFERENCE (I.T.C.)
CNR: GJAH170009682025
Filing Number
233/2025
Filing Date
18-03-2019
Registration No
233/2025
Registration Date
18-03-2019
Court
INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD
Judge
4-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Decision Date
02nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor SanghAhmedabad
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ONGC Ltd. Ahmedabad
M/S. ONGC Ltd. Ahmedabad
M/S Lion Man Power Solution Pvt. Ltd.
Hearing History
Judge: 4-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Disposed
For award
For Notice Serve to both partys
For Notice Serve to both partys
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | For award |
| 03-01-2026 | For Notice Serve to both partys |
| 19-11-2025 | For Notice Serve to both partys |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Industrial Tribunal rejected the reference filed by the Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh union seeking compassionate employment for Yuvraj Sinh Zala as a contractual security guard at ONGC Ltd, Ahmedabad. The tribunal found that the second party (union/worker) failed to appear before the tribunal despite multiple opportunities, submitted no written statement, and presented no documentary or oral evidence to substantiate their claim for relief. Consequently, the reference was dismissed as the worker could not prove entitlement to the demanded relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Industrial Tribunal rejected the reference filed by the Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh union seeking compassionate employment for Yuvraj Sinh Zala as a contractual security guard at ONGC Ltd, Ahmedabad. The tribunal found that the second party (union/worker) failed to appear before the tribunal despite multiple opportunities, submitted no written statement, and presented no documentary or oral evidence to substantiate their claim for relief. Consequently, the reference was dismissed as the worker could not prove entitlement to the demanded relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts