Mayur Bhagvanji Solanki vs Neprorecores Managenet Pvt Ltd — 56/2025

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

Case disposed

REFER T LC - Referance T

CNR: GJJM130002162025

Filing Number

56/2025

Filing Date

13-May-2025

Registration No

56/2025

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.Mayur Bhagvanji Solanki

    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

    Case Summary: 56/2025 Court Decision: The court partially allowed the petitioner Mayur Bhagvanji Solanki's reference against three manpower supply companies. The court found the termination illegal and awarded Rs. 30,000 compensation for unlawful dismissal, rejecting the claim for reinstatement due to significant time lapse. Key Reasoning: The petitioner worked as an operator for over two years on a daily wage basis but was terminated without following legal procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court determined he qualified as a protected worker and that his dismissal violated statutory requirements, warranting compensation rather than reinstatement. 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. 56/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 56/2025 Court Decision: The court partially allowed the petitioner Mayur Bhagvanji Solanki's reference against three manpower supply companies. The court found the termination illegal and awarded Rs. 30,000 compensation for unlawful dismissal, rejecting the claim for reinstatement due to significant time lapse. Key Reasoning: The petitioner worked as an operator for over two years on a daily wage basis but was terminated without following legal procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court determined he qualified as a protected worker and that his dismissal violated statutory requirements, warranting compensation rather than reinstatement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case