PARMAR DIVYANG VINODBHAI vs THE ARVIND LTD. Advocate - B K OZA — 14/2024
Case under Gujarat Industrial Relation Act, 1946 Section 79,1. Status: For Evidence of Applicant. Next hearing: 03rd April 2026.
TAPP LC - Application for Termination
CNR: GJGN060001992024
Next Hearing
03rd April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
14/2024
Filing Date
03-07-2024
Registration No
14/2024
Registration Date
03-07-2024
Court
LABOUR COURT, KALOL
Judge
1-JUDGE LABOUR COURT KALOL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PARMAR DIVYANG VINODBHAI
Adv. A N PATEL
Respondent(s)
THE ARVIND LTD. Advocate - B K OZA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE LABOUR COURT KALOL
For Evidence of Applicant
For Evidence of Applicant
For Evidence of Applicant
For Evidence of Applicant
For Evidence of Applicant
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | For Evidence of Applicant | |
| 06-02-2026 | For Evidence of Applicant | |
| 09-01-2026 | For Evidence of Applicant | |
| 20-12-2025 | For Evidence of Applicant | |
| 15-11-2025 | For Evidence of Applicant |
Interim Orders
Summary The Labour Court, Kalol dismissed the interim application filed by an employee seeking subsistence allowance (75% of monthly wages) during the pendency of their termination case under the Gujarat Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The court found that granting such interim relief at this stage was not legally justified, as established jurisprudence requires the main case to be decided on merits first before awarding final relief or compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Labour Court, Kalol dismissed the interim application filed by an employee seeking subsistence allowance (75% of monthly wages) during the pendency of their termination case under the Gujarat Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The court found that granting such interim relief at this stage was not legally justified, as established jurisprudence requires the main case to be decided on merits first before awarding final relief or compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts