Kishorbhai Nagajibhai Chabhadiya vs Karay PalakIjnershri Rajkot — 46/2025

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

Case disposed

REFER T LC - Referance T

CNR: GJJM130001732025

Filing Number

46/2025

Filing Date

22-Apr-2025

Registration No

46/2025

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.Kishorbhai Nagajibhai Chabhadiya

    Adv. P R JOSHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Karay PalakIjnershri Rajkot

  2. 2.Nayab Karay Palak Ijnershri Dharol

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary of Case 46/2025 The court rejected the petitioner's industrial dispute reference. Kishorbhai Nagajibhai Chabhadiya, a daily wage laborer employed by the Irrigation Department (Respondents) since 2001, was terminated on 01/01/2012 without notice, termination letter, or severance pay. The petitioner claimed illegal termination under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, asserting continuous service with 240+ working days annually and demanding reinstatement with back wages. The court found the petitioner failed to substantiate continuous employment through credible documentary evidence, holding that mere affidavits without supporting records (muster rolls, appointment letters, wage registers) are insufficient under settled legal principles. The reference was dismissed for lack of proof meeting statutory requirements for continuous service status. 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. 46/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 46/2025 The court rejected the petitioner's industrial dispute reference. Kishorbhai Nagajibhai Chabhadiya, a daily wage laborer employed by the Irrigation Department (Respondents) since 2001, was terminated on 01/01/2012 without notice, termination letter, or severance pay. The petitioner claimed illegal termination under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, asserting continuous service with 240+ working days annually and demanding reinstatement with back wages. The court found the petitioner failed to substantiate continuous employment through credible documentary evidence, holding that mere affidavits without supporting records (muster rolls, appointment letters, wage registers) are insufficient under settled legal principles. The reference was dismissed for lack of proof meeting statutory requirements for continuous service status. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case