Jayendrasinh K Jadeja vs Ramesh Valajibhai Ubhadiya — 4/2026
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 02nd April 2026.
MISC26A LC - Misc. Application - Under Rule-26A
CNR: GJJM130000242026
Filing Number
4/2026
Filing Date
05-Feb-2026
Registration No
4/2026
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.Ramesh Valajibhai Ubhadiya
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary: ID Parcharana Arji 04/2026 Court Decision: The Labour Court, Jamnagar granted the petitioner Jayendrasinh K. Jadeja's application to add the respondent Ramesh Valajibhai Ubhadiya as a party under Industrial Disputes Rules 26(A). The court ordered the petitioner's organization to pay the respondent-worker ₹7,000 as costs and an additional ₹5,000, while setting aside the original award in reference case 178/2014 and remitting it for reconsideration. Key Reasoning: The court found that allowing both parties to present their case would bring factual truth on record, serving justice better than dismissing the petition. The worker had suffered mental and financial hardship during the case proceedings, making the petition's grant just and reasonable. 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. 4/2026
Case Summary: ID Parcharana Arji 04/2026 Court Decision: The Labour Court, Jamnagar granted the petitioner Jayendrasinh K. Jadeja's application to add the respondent Ramesh Valajibhai Ubhadiya as a party under Industrial Disputes Rules 26(A). The court ordered the petitioner's organization to pay the respondent-worker ₹7,000 as costs and an additional ₹5,000, while setting aside the original award in reference case 178/2014 and remitting it for reconsideration. Key Reasoning: The court found that allowing both parties to present their case would bring factual truth on record, serving justice better than dismissing the petition. The worker had suffered mental and financial hardship during the case proceedings, making the petition's grant just and reasonable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts