Jitendrbhai Lalajibhai Shankhapara vs Karay Palak Ijnershri Sinchai Vibhag Rajkot — 27/2025

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

Case disposed

REFER T LC - Referance T

CNR: GJJM130001132025

Filing Number

27/2025

Filing Date

04-Mar-2025

Registration No

27/2025

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.Jitendrbhai Lalajibhai Shankhapara

    Adv. P R JOSHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Karay Palak Ijnershri Sinchai Vibhag Rajkot

  2. 2.Nayab Karay Palak Ijnershri Dharol

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary of Case 27/2025 The Labour Court dismissed the industrial dispute petition filed by Jitendrabhai Lalajibhai Shankhapara against the Irrigation Department (Rajkot) and its subordinate officer. The court found that the petitioner, a daily-wage laborer, failed to conclusively prove continuous employment for 240 days as required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to qualify for termination protections. Although the petitioner claimed continuous work from June 2007 to May 2013, the lack of documentary evidence (muster rolls, appointment letters, wage registers) and the significant 12-year delay in filing the case undermined the claim. The court upheld the respondent's position that inadequate proof and procedural delays made the petition untenable. 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. 27/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 27/2025 The Labour Court dismissed the industrial dispute petition filed by Jitendrabhai Lalajibhai Shankhapara against the Irrigation Department (Rajkot) and its subordinate officer. The court found that the petitioner, a daily-wage laborer, failed to conclusively prove continuous employment for 240 days as required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to qualify for termination protections. Although the petitioner claimed continuous work from June 2007 to May 2013, the lack of documentary evidence (muster rolls, appointment letters, wage registers) and the significant 12-year delay in filing the case undermined the claim. The court upheld the respondent's position that inadequate proof and procedural delays made the petition untenable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case