Shileshbhai Babubhai Mungra vs Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri Advocate - A G P — 55/2024
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 24th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJM130003412024
Filing Number
55/2024
Filing Date
10-Sep-2024
Registration No
55/2024
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.Shileshbhai Babubhai Mungra
Adv. P R JOSHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri Advocate - A G P
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary: Case 55/2024 The court rejected Shileshbhai Babubhai Mungra's (petitioner/respondent worker) industrial dispute reference challenging his termination from employment with the Nayab Kary Palak Ijner Shri (respondent/employer). The court found that although the worker worked continuously from June 15, 1999 to November 30, 2019 as a casual laborer earning minimum wages, he failed to establish sufficient proof of completing 240 working days required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the worker could not discharge the legal burden of proving continuous employment meeting statutory thresholds through credible documentary or oral evidence, the reference was dismissed. 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 Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
24-Dec-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
20-Dec-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
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. 55/2024
Summary: Case 55/2024 The court rejected Shileshbhai Babubhai Mungra's (petitioner/respondent worker) industrial dispute reference challenging his termination from employment with the Nayab Kary Palak Ijner Shri (respondent/employer). The court found that although the worker worked continuously from June 15, 1999 to November 30, 2019 as a casual laborer earning minimum wages, he failed to establish sufficient proof of completing 240 working days required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the worker could not discharge the legal burden of proving continuous employment meeting statutory thresholds through credible documentary or oral evidence, the reference was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts