Bukera Daji Suleman vs Karay Palak Ijnershri Sinchai Vibhag Rajkot — 25/2025
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 24th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJM130001112025
Filing Number
25/2025
Filing Date
04-Mar-2025
Registration No
25/2025
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.Bukera Daji Suleman
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. 25/2025 Court's Decision: The Industrial Tribunal rejected the petitioner Bukera Daji Suleman's reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The tribunal found that the petitioner, who worked as a daily-wage laborer from 2007 to May 1, 2013, was illegally terminated without following proper procedures. However, the tribunal dismissed the reference on procedural grounds—specifically because the case was filed over 11 years after termination, violating the one-year limitation period stipulated in amended Industrial Disputes Act rules, and because the petitioner failed to establish continuous employment of 240+ days with cogent evidence required by law. Key Reasoning: The tribunal determined the petitioner had worked continuously and legitimately but found procedural violations by both parties prevented granting relief, despite acknowledging the termination violated statutory requirements for notice, termination wages, and severance compensation 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. 25/2025
CASE SUMMARY: Reference (T) No. 25/2025 Court's Decision: The Industrial Tribunal rejected the petitioner Bukera Daji Suleman's reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The tribunal found that the petitioner, who worked as a daily-wage laborer from 2007 to May 1, 2013, was illegally terminated without following proper procedures. However, the tribunal dismissed the reference on procedural grounds—specifically because the case was filed over 11 years after termination, violating the one-year limitation period stipulated in amended Industrial Disputes Act rules, and because the petitioner failed to establish continuous employment of 240+ days with cogent evidence required by law. Key Reasoning: The tribunal determined the petitioner had worked continuously and legitimately but found procedural violations by both parties prevented granting relief, despite acknowledging the termination violated statutory requirements for notice, termination wages, and severance compensation under the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts