Rajesh Shantilal Rathod vs Neprorecores Managenet Pvt Ltd — 54/2025

Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Uncontested--EX on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

REFER T LC - Referance T

CNR: GJJM130002142025

Filing Number

54/2025

Filing Date

13-May-2025

Registration No

54/2025

Registration Date

13-May-2025

Court

LABOUR COURT, JAMNAGAR

Judge

2-Judge, Labour Court

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--EX

Last updated 24-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rajesh Shantilal Rathod

    Adv. H H DEDA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Neprorecores Managenet Pvt Ltd

  2. 2.Shari Ganesh Manpower Suplayer

  3. 3.Fox Inebling Pvt Ltd. Jamnagar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary of Case 54/2025 Court Decision: The court partially allowed the petitioner Rajesh Shantilal Rathod's reference against three respondent companies (Neprorecores Management, Shari Ganesh Manpower Supplier, and Fox Enabling Pvt Ltd). The court found the employer's termination of Rathod's employment on 30.08.2024 to be unlawful and without proper procedure, ordering the employer to pay compensation of ₹30,000 instead of reinstatement, as the employee had worked as an operator for over 2 years. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Judge, Labour Court

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    For Order

    Judge, Labour Court

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    For Arguement of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  6. 20-Mar-2026

    For Arguement of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  7. 09-Mar-2026

    For Evidence of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  8. 02-Mar-2026

    For Evidence of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  9. 21-Feb-2026

    For Other evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  10. 10-Feb-2026

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  11. 02-Feb-2026

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  12. 27-Jan-2026

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  13. 19-Jan-2026

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  14. 12-Jan-2026

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  15. 05-Jan-2026

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  16. 02-Jan-2026

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  17. 26-Dec-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  18. 22-Dec-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  19. 12-Dec-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  20. 28-Nov-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  21. 24-Nov-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  22. 07-Nov-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  23. 07-Oct-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  24. 29-Sep-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  25. 19-Sep-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  26. 09-Sep-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  27. 29-Aug-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  28. 12-Aug-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  29. 02-Aug-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  30. 14-Jul-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  31. 01-Jul-2025

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  32. 17-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 13-May-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 54/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 54/2025 Court Decision: The court partially allowed the petitioner Rajesh Shantilal Rathod's reference against three respondent companies (Neprorecores Management, Shari Ganesh Manpower Supplier, and Fox Enabling Pvt Ltd). The court found the employer's termination of Rathod's employment on 30.08.2024 to be unlawful and without proper procedure, ordering the employer to pay compensation of ₹30,000 instead of reinstatement, as the employee had worked as an operator for over 2 years. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case