CARPANTER MANOJ SANKALCHAND vs THE ARVIND LTD. Advocate - B K OZA — 27/2024
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: GJGN060002122024
Next Hearing
03rd April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
27/2024
Filing Date
03-07-2024
Registration No
27/2024
Registration Date
03-07-2024
Court
LABOUR COURT, KALOL
Judge
1-JUDGE LABOUR COURT KALOL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
CARPANTER MANOJ SANKALCHAND
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 at Kalol dismissed the interim application filed by an employee seeking 75% of wages as subsistence allowance during the pendency of his main case under the Gujarat Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Section 119(D). The court found that the employee failed to establish a prima facie case, did not demonstrate irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favor granting interim relief at this stage. The court held that final determination of such relief is appropriate only after the main case concludes on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Labour Court at Kalol dismissed the interim application filed by an employee seeking 75% of wages as subsistence allowance during the pendency of his main case under the Gujarat Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Section 119(D). The court found that the employee failed to establish a prima facie case, did not demonstrate irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favor granting interim relief at this stage. The court held that final determination of such relief is appropriate only after the main case concludes on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts