PALLAVIBEN KALPESHBHAI SOLANKI vs D.G.NAKRANI AND OTHER Advocate - M R PARIKH — 92/2022
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10,1. Status: For Reply of opponent. Next hearing: 23rd July 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJBH100004252022
Filing Number
92/2022
Filing Date
21-Jun-2022
Registration No
92/2022
Registration Date
21-Jun-2022
Court
LABOUR COURT, BHARUCH
Judge
1-Judge, Labour Court
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.PALLAVIBEN KALPESHBHAI SOLANKI
Adv. D.S.JOG
Respondent(s)
-
1.D.G.NAKRANI AND OTHER Advocate - M R PARIKH
-
2.MEDICAL SUPRINTENDENT OF GENERAL HOSPITAL
Case History
-
23-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
15-May-2026
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
23-Apr-2026
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
17-Mar-2026
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
13-Jan-2026
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
13-Nov-2025
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
18-Sep-2025
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
14-Aug-2025
For Notice Serve to opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
16-Jun-2025
For Notice Serve to opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
23-Apr-2025
Restored
Judge, Labour Court
-
23-Apr-2025
Evidence Of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
28-Jun-2023
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: 92/2022 - Pallaviben Kalpeshbhai Solanki v. D.G. Nakrani Outcome: Petition partially allowed. The Labour Court declared Pallaviben Kalpeshbhai Solanki's termination by First Respondent (contract agency) as illegal and ordered her reinstatement to her original position with 40% of back wages from the date of termination, plus costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by First Respondent. The court did not hold Second Respondent (Government Hospital) liable, finding no employer relationship existed with her. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
28-Jun-2023
Disposed
Judge, Labour Court
-
26-Jun-2023
For Order
Judge, Labour Court
-
23-Jun-2023
For Order
Judge, Labour Court
-
21-Jun-2023
For Arguement of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
12-Jun-2023
For Arguement of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
05-Jun-2023
For Arguement of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
26-May-2023
For Arguement of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
19-May-2023
For Arguement of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
17-May-2023
For Arguement of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
05-May-2023
For Arguement of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
01-May-2023
For Evidence of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
26-Apr-2023
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
11-Apr-2023
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
03-Apr-2023
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
24-Mar-2023
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
17-Mar-2023
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
02-Mar-2023
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
23-Feb-2023
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
03-Feb-2023
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
27-Jan-2023
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
13-Jan-2023
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
29-Dec-2022
For Notice Serve to opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
15-Dec-2022
For Notice Serve to opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
28-Nov-2022
For Notice Serve to opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
10-Nov-2022
For Notice Serve to opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
13-Oct-2022
For Notice Serve to opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
08-Sep-2022
For Notice Serve to opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
22-Aug-2022
For Notice Serve to opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
18-Aug-2022
For Notice Serve to opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
08-Aug-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Jun-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 92/2022
Case Summary: 92/2022 - Pallaviben Kalpeshbhai Solanki v. D.G. Nakrani Outcome: Petition partially allowed. The Labour Court declared Pallaviben Kalpeshbhai Solanki's termination by First Respondent (contract agency) as illegal and ordered her reinstatement to her original position with 40% of back wages from the date of termination, plus costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by First Respondent. The court did not hold Second Respondent (Government Hospital) liable, finding no employer relationship existed with her. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts