FACTORY INSPECTOR vs AARCHITBHAI K AMIN Advocate - P D SOLANKI — 41/2026

Case under Factories Act, 1948 Section 68. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN160001132026

Filing Number

41/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

41/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

LABOUR COURT, BHAVNAGAR

Judge

2-Judge, Labour Court

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 31-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Factories Act, 1948 Section 68

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.FACTORY INSPECTOR

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AARCHITBHAI K AMIN Advocate - P D SOLANKI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 41/2026 The court found respondent Aarchitbhai K. Amin, owner of Archit Organosis Limited, guilty of violating Rule 68-U(B)(2) of the Gujarat Factories Rules 1963 for failing to employ a part-time medical officer with industrial health qualifications who should visit the factory at least twice weekly. The respondent pleaded guilty and claimed it was his first offense with assurances of future compliance. The court convicted the respondent under Section 92 of the Factories Act 1948 and sentenced him to a fine of ₹5,000 with an alternative sentence of 30 days simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge, Labour Court

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 41/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 41/2026 The court found respondent Aarchitbhai K. Amin, owner of Archit Organosis Limited, guilty of violating Rule 68-U(B)(2) of the Gujarat Factories Rules 1963 for failing to employ a part-time medical officer with industrial health qualifications who should visit the factory at least twice weekly. The respondent pleaded guilty and claimed it was his first offense with assurances of future compliance. The court convicted the respondent under Section 92 of the Factories Act 1948 and sentenced him to a fine of ₹5,000 with an alternative sentence of 30 days simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case