RAJIBEN ANANDBHAI GOHIL vs VARDHMAN JAIN AGAM MANDIR Advocate - K M GANDHI — 4/2011
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 033C. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 01st May 2026.
RECO33C2 LC - Recovery 33C (2)
CNR: GJBN160001412011
Filing Number
4/2011
Filing Date
06-01-2011
Registration No
4/2011
Registration Date
06-01-2011
Court
LABOUR COURT, BHAVNAGAR
Judge
1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Decision Date
01st May 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 Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-04-2026 | For Order |
| 28-04-2026 | For Order |
| 03-04-2026 | For Order |
| 13-03-2026 | For Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Rajiben Anandbhai Gohil v. Vardhman Jain Agam Mandir (2011) The Labour Court at Bhavnagar dismissed the petitioner's recovery application under Industrial Disputes Act Section 33-C(2). The petitioner, claiming 20 years of employment with a temple trust, sought recovery of ₹9,64,740 for unpaid overtime, holiday pay, minimum wages, and bonus. The court found the petitioner failed to establish that the temple qualified as an "industry" under labor laws or that any prior award/settlement existed mandating such payments, rejecting all monetary claims and dismissing the application without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Rajiben Anandbhai Gohil v. Vardhman Jain Agam Mandir (2011) The Labour Court at Bhavnagar dismissed the petitioner's recovery application under Industrial Disputes Act Section 33-C(2). The petitioner, claiming 20 years of employment with a temple trust, sought recovery of ₹9,64,740 for unpaid overtime, holiday pay, minimum wages, and bonus. The court found the petitioner failed to establish that the temple qualified as an "industry" under labor laws or that any prior award/settlement existed mandating such payments, rejecting all monetary claims and dismissing the application without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts