Ketanbhai Lalagibhai Tarpada vs Karay Palak Ijnershri Rakot — 43/2025

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

Case disposed

REFER T LC - Referance T

CNR: GJJM130001702025

Filing Number

43/2025

Filing Date

22-Apr-2025

Registration No

43/2025

Registration Date

22-Apr-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.Ketanbhai Lalagibhai Tarpada

    Adv. P R JOSHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Karay Palak Ijnershri Rakot

  2. 2.Nayab Karay Palak Ijnershri Dharol

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 43/2025 Petitioner: Ketanbhai Lalagibhai Tarpada Respondents: Executive Engineer, Rajkot Irrigation Department and Nayab (Assistant) Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division 6/4, Dhrol Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's reference filed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10(1). Key Reasoning: The petitioner claimed he was illegally terminated from his position as a daily-wage laborer after working continuously since 2005. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claims with sufficient evidence—particularly the required 240 continuous working days needed for protection under labor law. The employer (respondent) successfully raised the defense that termination procedures were properly followed and that the worker did not meet the statutory requirements for permanent employment status. The court upheld this finding, noting the petitioner's long delay in filing the case and lack of documentary proof. 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. 28-May-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 22-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 43/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 43/2025 Petitioner: Ketanbhai Lalagibhai Tarpada Respondents: Executive Engineer, Rajkot Irrigation Department and Nayab (Assistant) Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division 6/4, Dhrol Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's reference filed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10(1). Key Reasoning: The petitioner claimed he was illegally terminated from his position as a daily-wage laborer after working continuously since 2005. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claims with sufficient evidence—particularly the required 240 continuous working days needed for protection under labor law. The employer (respondent) successfully raised the defense that termination procedures were properly followed and that the worker did not meet the statutory requirements for permanent employment status. The court upheld this finding, noting the petitioner's long delay in filing the case and lack of documentary proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case