BHARGAV DIVYAKANT SHAILESHBHAI vs THE ARVIND LTD. Advocate - B K OZA — 23/2024
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 79,1. Status: For Evidence of Applicant. Next hearing: 03rd April 2026.
TAPP LC - Application for Termination
CNR: GJGN060002082024
Next Hearing
03rd April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
23/2024
Filing Date
03-07-2024
Registration No
23/2024
Registration Date
03-07-2024
Court
LABOUR COURT, KALOL
Judge
1-JUDGE LABOUR COURT KALOL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BHARGAV DIVYAKANT SHAILESHBHAI
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 the worker seeking interim relief (maintenance/subsistence allowance) during the pendency of the main case under the Gujarat Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Section 119(D). The court held that while it has authority to grant interim relief, the worker failed to establish: (1) a prima facie case, (2) that denial of relief would cause irreparable harm, and (3) that the balance of convenience favors the worker. 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 the worker seeking interim relief (maintenance/subsistence allowance) during the pendency of the main case under the Gujarat Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Section 119(D). The court held that while it has authority to grant interim relief, the worker failed to establish: (1) a prima facie case, (2) that denial of relief would cause irreparable harm, and (3) that the balance of convenience favors the worker. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts