Jamanbhai Savjibhai Tarpada vs Kary Palak Ijnershri Advocate - A G P — 54/2024
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 24th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJM130003402024
Filing Number
54/2024
Filing Date
10-Sep-2024
Registration No
54/2024
Registration Date
10-Sep-2024
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.Jamanbhai Savjibhai Tarpada
Adv. P R JOSHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.Kary Palak Ijnershri Advocate - A G P
-
2.Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary of Case 54/2024 The court rejected the petitioner Jamanbhai Savjibhai Tarpada's industrial dispute reference. The petitioner, a daily wage laborer employed since 1998, was terminated without notice or severance pay on July 1, 2009. The court found the termination illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, as the employer failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements (notice, written justification, and compensation). However, the court dismissed the reference on technical grounds—the case was filed approximately 15 years after termination, far exceeding the statutory limitation period, and the petitioner could not adequately prove continuous employment of 240 days as required by law. 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 Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
15-Oct-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
08-Oct-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
24-Sep-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
10-Sep-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
20-Aug-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
16-Jul-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
18-Jun-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
21-May-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
09-Apr-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
26-Mar-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
12-Mar-2025
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
05-Mar-2025
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
19-Feb-2025
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
22-Jan-2025
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
08-Jan-2025
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
18-Dec-2024
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
04-Dec-2024
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court
-
27-Nov-2024
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court
-
13-Nov-2024
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court
-
11-Oct-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Sep-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 54/2024
Summary of Case 54/2024 The court rejected the petitioner Jamanbhai Savjibhai Tarpada's industrial dispute reference. The petitioner, a daily wage laborer employed since 1998, was terminated without notice or severance pay on July 1, 2009. The court found the termination illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, as the employer failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements (notice, written justification, and compensation). However, the court dismissed the reference on technical grounds—the case was filed approximately 15 years after termination, far exceeding the statutory limitation period, and the petitioner could not adequately prove continuous employment of 240 days as required by law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts