Jayendrasinh K Jadeja vs Sukhdevsinh Prasangsinh Jadeja — 3/2026
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 02nd April 2026.
MISC26A LC - Misc. Application - Under Rule-26A
CNR: GJJM130000232026
Filing Number
3/2026
Filing Date
05-Feb-2026
Registration No
3/2026
Registration Date
05-Feb-2026
Court
LABOUR COURT, JAMNAGAR
Judge
1-Judge, Labour Court
Decision Date
02-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 29-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Jayendrasinh K Jadeja
Adv. A N SHAM
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sukhdevsinh Prasangsinh Jadeja
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary: ID Petition 03/2026 Court Decision: The Industrial Disputes Court (Jamnagar) granted Jayendrasinh K Jadeja's application under Industrial Disputes Rules 26(A) to implead him as a party to the proceedings. The court set aside the prior ex-parte order against him and remitted the original reference (LCR 180/2014) for fresh consideration. Key Reasoning: The court found that Jadeja was not properly served notice despite being named in the petition, and had been absent due to documented health reasons. Since both parties would now be able to present their cases, the truth could be properly recorded, serving justice and warranting relief. Remedy Awarded: Respondent must pay Jadeja ₹7,000 in costs, plus an additional ₹5,000, with the original reference to be reopened for complete resolution within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Apr-2026
Disposed
Judge, Labour Court
-
25-Mar-2026
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
24-Mar-2026
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
24-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 3/2026
Case Summary: ID Petition 03/2026 Court Decision: The Industrial Disputes Court (Jamnagar) granted Jayendrasinh K Jadeja's application under Industrial Disputes Rules 26(A) to implead him as a party to the proceedings. The court set aside the prior ex-parte order against him and remitted the original reference (LCR 180/2014) for fresh consideration. Key Reasoning: The court found that Jadeja was not properly served notice despite being named in the petition, and had been absent due to documented health reasons. Since both parties would now be able to present their cases, the truth could be properly recorded, serving justice and warranting relief. Remedy Awarded: Respondent must pay Jadeja ₹7,000 in costs, plus an additional ₹5,000, with the original reference to be reopened for complete resolution within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts