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.

For Evidence of Applicant Next hearing 03-Apr-2026 this date has passed

TAPP LC - Application for Termination

CNR: GJGN060002122024

Filing Number

27/2024

Filing Date

03-Jul-2024

Registration No

27/2024

Registration Date

03-Jul-2024

Court

LABOUR COURT, KALOL

Judge

1-Judge Labour Court Kalol

Last updated 21-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Gujarat Industrial Relation Act, 1946 Section 79,1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CARPANTER MANOJ SANKALCHAND

    Adv. A N PATEL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE ARVIND LTD. Advocate - B K OZA

Case History

  1. 03-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge Labour Court Kalol

  3. 06-Feb-2026

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge Labour Court Kalol

  4. 09-Jan-2026

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge Labour Court Kalol

  5. 20-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge Labour Court Kalol

  6. 15-Nov-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge Labour Court Kalol

  7. 04-Oct-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge Labour Court Kalol

  8. 02-Sep-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge Labour Court Kalol

  9. 07-Aug-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge Labour Court Kalol

  10. 15-Jul-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge Labour Court Kalol

  11. 17-Jun-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge Labour Court Kalol

  12. 27-May-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge Labour Court Kalol

  13. 29-Apr-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  14. 22-Apr-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  15. 15-Apr-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  16. 05-Apr-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  17. 15-Mar-2025

    OrderView PDF

    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.

  18. 15-Mar-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  19. 11-Mar-2025

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  20. 27-Feb-2025

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  21. 11-Feb-2025

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  22. 01-Feb-2025

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  23. 04-Jan-2025

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  24. 07-Dec-2024

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  25. 22-Oct-2024

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  26. 05-Oct-2024

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  27. 03-Sep-2024

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  28. 06-Aug-2024

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court (Jd)

  29. 03-Jul-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 03-Jul-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 27/2024

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case