MAZDUR ADHIKAR SANGH vs GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD Advocate - S C DESAI — 38/2008
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Status: For Evidence of Second party. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
REF IT - REFERENCE (I.T.)
CNR: GJBN140000242008
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
38/2008
Filing Date
25-08-2008
Registration No
38/2008
Registration Date
25-08-2008
Court
INDUSTRIAL COURT, BHAVNAGAR
Judge
1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MAZDUR ADHIKAR SANGH
Adv. A R CHAUHAN
Respondent(s)
GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD Advocate - S C DESAI
POART OFFICER SHRI
Adv. S C DESAI
H.K.DAVE P.L.
SAGAR STEAVIDOOR
Adv. B M JOSHI
L.G.P. AND SONS
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
For Evidence of Second party
For Evidence of Second party
For Evidence of Second party
For Evidence of Second party
For Evidence of Second party
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-05-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
| 02-05-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
| 18-04-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
| 10-04-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
| 13-03-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Mazdur Adhikar Sangh v. Gujarat Maritime Board (38/2008) The Industrial Court at Bhavnagar dismissed the reference petition filed by Mazdur Adhikar Sangh against Gujarat Maritime Board. The court found that despite nearly 17 years passing since the case was filed in 2008, the respondent made no efforts to serve notice on the original petitioners (Respondents No. 3 and 5) and took no further action in the proceedings. Consequently, the court struck off Respondents No. 3 and 5 and their respective owners, partners, and custodians from the case and rejected their status as parties to the reference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Mazdur Adhikar Sangh v. Gujarat Maritime Board (38/2008) The Industrial Court at Bhavnagar dismissed the reference petition filed by Mazdur Adhikar Sangh against Gujarat Maritime Board. The court found that despite nearly 17 years passing since the case was filed in 2008, the respondent made no efforts to serve notice on the original petitioners (Respondents No. 3 and 5) and took no further action in the proceedings. Consequently, the court struck off Respondents No. 3 and 5 and their respective owners, partners, and custodians from the case and rejected their status as parties to the reference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts