Ghelabhai Jodhabhai Gamara vs Karay Palak Ijnershri Sinchai Vibhag Rajokt — 26/2025

Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

REFER T LC - Referance T

CNR: GJJM130001122025

Filing Number

26/2025

Filing Date

04-Mar-2025

Registration No

26/2025

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ghelabhai Jodhabhai Gamara

    Adv. P R JOSHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Karay Palak Ijnershri Sinchai Vibhag Rajokt

  2. 2.Nayab Karay Palak Ijnershri Dharol

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: Reference (T) No. 26/2025 Court Decision: The Labour Court rejected the employer's reference challenging reinstatement of a daily-wage worker. The worker, Ghelabhai Jodhabhai Gamara, was found to have been illegally terminated without proper notice, compensation, or severance under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Key Reasoning: The court determined the worker completed continuous service exceeding 240 days (required threshold for permanent status under Indian labour law) from 2007 to May 2013 at the irrigation department. The employer failed to follow mandatory termination procedures—no written notice, no severance pay, no backdated compensation. Since procedural requirements under Section 25(F) were breached, the termination was deemed unlawful and the worker's reinstatement with continuity of service was upheld. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge, Labour Court

  4. 20-Mar-2026

    For Order

    Judge, Labour Court

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    For Order

    Judge, Labour Court

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    For Order

    Judge, Labour Court

  7. 28-Jan-2026

    For Arguement of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  8. 21-Jan-2026

    For Arguement of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  9. 31-Dec-2025

    For Arguement of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  10. 24-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  11. 20-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  12. 17-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  13. 10-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  14. 26-Nov-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  15. 12-Nov-2025

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  16. 15-Oct-2025

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  17. 08-Oct-2025

    For Statement of Claim

    Judge, Labour Court

  18. 01-Oct-2025

    For Statement of Claim

    Judge, Labour Court

  19. 24-Sep-2025

    For Statement of Claim

    Judge, Labour Court

  20. 10-Sep-2025

    For Statement of Claim

    Judge, Labour Court

  21. 20-Aug-2025

    For Statement of Claim

    Judge, Labour Court

  22. 16-Jul-2025

    For Statement of Claim

    Judge, Labour Court

  23. 18-Jun-2025

    For Statement of Claim

    Judge, Labour Court

  24. 21-May-2025

    For Statement of Claim

    Judge, Labour Court

  25. 09-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 09-Apr-2025

    For Statement of Claim

    Judge, Labour Court

  27. 04-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 26/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Reference (T) No. 26/2025 Court Decision: The Labour Court rejected the employer's reference challenging reinstatement of a daily-wage worker. The worker, Ghelabhai Jodhabhai Gamara, was found to have been illegally terminated without proper notice, compensation, or severance under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Key Reasoning: The court determined the worker completed continuous service exceeding 240 days (required threshold for permanent status under Indian labour law) from 2007 to May 2013 at the irrigation department. The employer failed to follow mandatory termination procedures—no written notice, no severance pay, no backdated compensation. Since procedural requirements under Section 25(F) were breached, the termination was deemed unlawful and the worker's reinstatement with continuity of service was upheld. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case