Shaileshbhai Randhodbhai Kotadiya vs Karay Palak Ijnershri Rajkot — 44/2025
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 24th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJM130001712025
Filing Number
44/2025
Filing Date
22-Apr-2025
Registration No
44/2025
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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Shaileshbhai Randhodbhai Kotadiya
Adv. P R JOSHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.Karay Palak Ijnershri Rajkot
-
2.Nayab Karay Palak Ijnershri Dharol
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: 44/2025 Court Decision: The Labour Court dismissed the petitioner Shaileshbhai Randhodbhai Kotadiya's reference against the irrigation department's officials for illegal termination. The court ruled against the petitioner on key grounds, finding insufficient evidence of continuous employment meeting the required 240-day threshold under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Key Reasoning: The court held that the petitioner failed to prove continuous service with proper documentary evidence (muster rolls, appointment letters, wage records). While acknowledging the petitioner's oral testimony of 8+ years of employment as a daily laborer, the court determined this alone was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof required in industrial disputes cases, particularly regarding the 240-day continuity requirement for establishing protected employment status. 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
-
28-May-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Apr-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 44/2025
Case Summary: 44/2025 Court Decision: The Labour Court dismissed the petitioner Shaileshbhai Randhodbhai Kotadiya's reference against the irrigation department's officials for illegal termination. The court ruled against the petitioner on key grounds, finding insufficient evidence of continuous employment meeting the required 240-day threshold under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Key Reasoning: The court held that the petitioner failed to prove continuous service with proper documentary evidence (muster rolls, appointment letters, wage records). While acknowledging the petitioner's oral testimony of 8+ years of employment as a daily laborer, the court determined this alone was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof required in industrial disputes cases, particularly regarding the 240-day continuity requirement for establishing protected employment status. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts