Vipulbhai Mansukhbhai Malani vs Karay Palak Ijnershri Sinchai Vibhag Rajkot — 23/2025
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 24th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJM130001092025
Filing Number
23/2025
Filing Date
04-Mar-2025
Registration No
23/2025
Registration Date
04-Mar-2025
Court
LABOUR COURT, JAMNAGAR
Judge
1-Judge, Labour Court
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 24-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Vipulbhai Mansukhbhai Malani
Adv. P R JOSHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.Karay Palak Ijnershri Sinchai Vibhag Rajkot
-
2.Nayab Karay Palak Ijnershri Dharol
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: Reference (T) No. 23/2025 Court Decision: The Labour Court rejected the petitioner's (Vipulbhai Malani's) reference challenging his termination from employment with the Rajkot Irrigation Department. The court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of continuous employment for 240 days, which is required under the Industrial Disputes Act to establish regular/continuous service status. Key Reasoning: The court applied established legal principles requiring the workman to discharge the burden of proof through cogent evidence—both oral and documentary. Despite the petitioner's claims of uninterrupted service since 2007, he could not produce sufficient documentary evidence (appointment letters, wage registers, attendance records) to support continuous employment. The respondent employer similarly failed to produce counter-evidence but was not required to do so in the absence of suppression allegations. Consequently, the court dismissed the termination as not constituting illegal dismissal under the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judge, Labour Court
-
20-Mar-2026
For Order
Judge, Labour Court
-
11-Mar-2026
For Order
Judge, Labour Court
-
11-Feb-2026
For Order
Judge, Labour Court
-
28-Jan-2026
For Arguement of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
21-Jan-2026
For Arguement of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
31-Dec-2025
For Arguement of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
24-Dec-2025
For Evidence of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
20-Dec-2025
For Evidence of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
17-Dec-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
10-Dec-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
26-Nov-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
12-Nov-2025
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
15-Oct-2025
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
08-Oct-2025
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court
-
01-Oct-2025
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court
-
24-Sep-2025
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court
-
10-Sep-2025
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court
-
20-Aug-2025
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court
-
16-Jul-2025
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court
-
18-Jun-2025
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court
-
21-May-2025
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court
-
09-Apr-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Apr-2025
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court
-
04-Mar-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 23/2025
Case Summary: Reference (T) No. 23/2025 Court Decision: The Labour Court rejected the petitioner's (Vipulbhai Malani's) reference challenging his termination from employment with the Rajkot Irrigation Department. The court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of continuous employment for 240 days, which is required under the Industrial Disputes Act to establish regular/continuous service status. Key Reasoning: The court applied established legal principles requiring the workman to discharge the burden of proof through cogent evidence—both oral and documentary. Despite the petitioner's claims of uninterrupted service since 2007, he could not produce sufficient documentary evidence (appointment letters, wage registers, attendance records) to support continuous employment. The respondent employer similarly failed to produce counter-evidence but was not required to do so in the absence of suppression allegations. Consequently, the court dismissed the termination as not constituting illegal dismissal under the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts