Nilesh Babubhai Limbashiya vs Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri Advocate - A G P — 57/2024
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 24th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJM130003432024
Filing Number
57/2024
Filing Date
10-Sep-2024
Registration No
57/2024
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.Nilesh Babubhai Limbashiya
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: 57/2024 Court Decision: The Labour Court dismissed the employer's reference and upheld the worker's claim for reinstatement with back wages. Key Reasoning: The court found that Nilesh Babubhai Limbashiya worked continuously from June 1, 1998 until November 30, 2019 as a daily-wage laborer for the irrigation department (first petitioner), completing far more than 240 days of work annually. His termination on November 30, 2019 was illegal and without proper procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act—no notice, notice period wages, or severance compensation were provided. The employer failed to produce necessary documentation (muster rolls, appointment letters, wage registers) to support its defense, and the court applied established precedent that mere non-production of records cannot defeat a worker's proven continuous service claim. 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 opponent
Judge, Labour Court
-
21-Jan-2026
For Arguement of opponent
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. 57/2024
Case Summary: 57/2024 Court Decision: The Labour Court dismissed the employer's reference and upheld the worker's claim for reinstatement with back wages. Key Reasoning: The court found that Nilesh Babubhai Limbashiya worked continuously from June 1, 1998 until November 30, 2019 as a daily-wage laborer for the irrigation department (first petitioner), completing far more than 240 days of work annually. His termination on November 30, 2019 was illegal and without proper procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act—no notice, notice period wages, or severance compensation were provided. The employer failed to produce necessary documentation (muster rolls, appointment letters, wage registers) to support its defense, and the court applied established precedent that mere non-production of records cannot defeat a worker's proven continuous service claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts