Rajesh Chaganbhai Khatrani vs Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri Advocate - A G P — 60/2024

Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

REFER T LC - Referance T

CNR: GJJM130003462024

Filing Number

60/2024

Filing Date

10-Sep-2024

Registration No

60/2024

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rajesh Chaganbhai Khatrani

    Adv. P R JOSHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri Advocate - A G P

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case 60/2024 Summary The Jamnagar Labour Court rejected the employer's reference against reinstatement of a daily-wage worker. The court found that Rajesh Khatrani was terminated illegally without proper notice or severance pay on 30/11/2019 after working continuously since 1998. Despite the seven-year delay in filing, the court ruled the termination violated Industrial Disputes Act provisions requiring notice, explanation, and compensation before dismissal of workers with continuous service records. The reference was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge, Labour Court

  4. 20-Mar-2026

    For Order

    Judge, Labour Court

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    For Order

    Judge, Labour Court

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    For Order

    Judge, Labour Court

  7. 28-Jan-2026

    For Arguement of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  8. 21-Jan-2026

    For Arguement of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  9. 31-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  10. 24-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  11. 20-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  12. 17-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  13. 10-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  14. 26-Nov-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  15. 12-Nov-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  16. 15-Oct-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  17. 08-Oct-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  18. 24-Sep-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  19. 10-Sep-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  20. 20-Aug-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  21. 16-Jul-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  22. 18-Jun-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  23. 21-May-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  24. 09-Apr-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  25. 26-Mar-2025

    For Evidence of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  26. 12-Mar-2025

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  27. 05-Mar-2025

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  28. 19-Feb-2025

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  29. 22-Jan-2025

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  30. 08-Jan-2025

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  31. 18-Dec-2024

    For Reply of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  32. 04-Dec-2024

    For Statement of Claim

    Judge, Labour Court

  33. 27-Nov-2024

    For Statement of Claim

    Judge, Labour Court

  34. 13-Nov-2024

    For Statement of Claim

    Judge, Labour Court

  35. 11-Oct-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 10-Sep-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 60/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case 60/2024 Summary The Jamnagar Labour Court rejected the employer's reference against reinstatement of a daily-wage worker. The court found that Rajesh Khatrani was terminated illegally without proper notice or severance pay on 30/11/2019 after working continuously since 1998. Despite the seven-year delay in filing, the court ruled the termination violated Industrial Disputes Act provisions requiring notice, explanation, and compensation before dismissal of workers with continuous service records. The reference was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case