Kantilal Mohanbhai Bhanderi vs Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri Advocate - A G P — 62/2024

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

Case disposed

REFER T LC - Referance T

CNR: GJJM130003482024

Filing Number

62/2024

Filing Date

10-Sep-2024

Registration No

62/2024

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.Kantilal Mohanbhai Bhanderi

    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

    Summary of Case 62/2024 The Labour Court rejected the reference filed by Kantilal Mohanbhai Bhanderi, finding that he failed to prove he worked 240 continuous days as required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court determined that while the worker claimed wrongful termination from a daily wage position at the irrigation department, he could not substantiate his employment through adequate documentary evidence, and the employer's defense regarding lack of proper appointment records was not conclusively rebutted. 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 Arguement of Applicant

    Judge, Labour Court

  10. 24-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  11. 20-Dec-2025

    For Evidence of opponent

    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. 62/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 62/2024 The Labour Court rejected the reference filed by Kantilal Mohanbhai Bhanderi, finding that he failed to prove he worked 240 continuous days as required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court determined that while the worker claimed wrongful termination from a daily wage position at the irrigation department, he could not substantiate his employment through adequate documentary evidence, and the employer's defense regarding lack of proper appointment records was not conclusively rebutted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case