Sudhir bhanubhai bhanderi vs Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri Advocate - A G P — 56/2024
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 24th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJM130003422024
Filing Number
56/2024
Filing Date
10-Sep-2024
Registration No
56/2024
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.Sudhir bhanubhai bhanderi
Adv. P R JOSHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri Advocate - A G P
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: Reference 56/2024 Court Decision: The Labour Court rejected Sudhir Bhanubhai Bhanderi's industrial dispute reference against the Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershi (Assistant Executive Engineer). Key Reasoning: The court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove continuous employment of 240 days in a given year as required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While the petitioner claimed wrongful termination without notice or severance pay, the court determined that the petitioner could not substantiate the claim of continuous consecutive work through cogent oral and documentary evidence, despite raising the dispute after considerable delay. 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. 56/2024
Case Summary: Reference 56/2024 Court Decision: The Labour Court rejected Sudhir Bhanubhai Bhanderi's industrial dispute reference against the Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershi (Assistant Executive Engineer). Key Reasoning: The court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove continuous employment of 240 days in a given year as required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While the petitioner claimed wrongful termination without notice or severance pay, the court determined that the petitioner could not substantiate the claim of continuous consecutive work through cogent oral and documentary evidence, despite raising the dispute after considerable delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts