RAJIBEN ANANDBHAI GOHIL vs VARDHMAN JAIN AGAM MANDIR Advocate - K M GANDHI — 39/2011
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 010. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 28th April 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJBN160000322011
Filing Number
39/2011
Filing Date
07-05-2011
Registration No
39/2011
Registration Date
07-05-2011
Court
LABOUR COURT, BHAVNAGAR
Judge
1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAJIBEN ANANDBHAI GOHIL
Adv. R P NARIGARA
Respondent(s)
VARDHMAN JAIN AGAM MANDIR Advocate - K M GANDHI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Disposed
For Order
For Order
For Order
For Arguement of Opponant
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 03-04-2026 | For Order |
| 13-03-2026 | For Order |
| 28-02-2026 | For Order |
| 19-02-2026 | For Arguement of Opponant |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 39/2011 Court Decision: The Labour Court at Bhavnagar dismissed the worker's industrial dispute reference. The court held that Vardhman Jain Agam Mandir, being a religious trust institution, does not qualify as an "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore the Act's protections do not apply to the worker. Key Reasoning: Applying the triple test established in precedent law, the court found insufficient evidence that the temple trust engaged in systematic economic activities, maintained an employer-employee relationship, or produced goods/services primarily for commercial profit. The institution's activities were deemed charitable and religious in nature rather than industrial, making the worker ineligible for statutory protections against termination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 39/2011 Court Decision: The Labour Court at Bhavnagar dismissed the worker's industrial dispute reference. The court held that Vardhman Jain Agam Mandir, being a religious trust institution, does not qualify as an "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore the Act's protections do not apply to the worker. Key Reasoning: Applying the triple test established in precedent law, the court found insufficient evidence that the temple trust engaged in systematic economic activities, maintained an employer-employee relationship, or produced goods/services primarily for commercial profit. The institution's activities were deemed charitable and religious in nature rather than industrial, making the worker ineligible for statutory protections against termination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts