Government of Gujarat D R Parmar vs Jackson car accessories and Car washing — 5/2026

Case under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Section 26(D). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK170000102026

Filing Number

5/2026

Filing Date

10-Feb-2026

Registration No

5/2026

Registration Date

10-Feb-2026

Court

LABOUR COURT, PALANPUR

Judge

1-Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 06-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Section 26(D)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat D R Parmar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Jackson car accessories and Car washing

  2. 2.PRAVINSINH DEVISINH IDAVAT

  3. 3.Dilipsinh Dabhi

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The court convicted the accused of violating the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by breaching Rule 26(D) under the 1961 Regulations, as amended by the Gujarat Labor Law Amendment Act 2015. The accused was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2,000 and directed to deposit the fine with the government; in case of non-payment, the accused shall undergo one month simple imprisonment. The court considered mitigating factors including the accused's family circumstances and employment impact while imposing the minimum statutory penalty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 10-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 5/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court convicted the accused of violating the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by breaching Rule 26(D) under the 1961 Regulations, as amended by the Gujarat Labor Law Amendment Act 2015. The accused was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2,000 and directed to deposit the fine with the government; in case of non-payment, the accused shall undergo one month simple imprisonment. The court considered mitigating factors including the accused's family circumstances and employment impact while imposing the minimum statutory penalty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case