Nilesh Bhanubhai Bhanderi vs Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri Advocate - A G P — 63/2024
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 24th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJM130003492024
Filing Number
63/2024
Filing Date
10-Sep-2024
Registration No
63/2024
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 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 (T) No. 63/2024 Court Decision: The Industrial Disputes Reference filed by Nilesh Bhanubhai Bhanderi against the Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri (respondent employer) has been rejected/dismissed. Key Findings: The court found that while the petitioner worked as a daily wage laborer for the employer from June 2007 to November 2019 on continuous basis, he failed to establish his case with sufficient documentary evidence despite the employer's obligation to produce muster rolls and wage records. The petitioner's termination on 30/11/2019 without proper notice or severance pay violated the Industrial Disputes Act, but his delayed filing of the case (approximately 5 years later) and inability to substantiate continuous 240-day employment requirement weakened his claim for reinstatement with back wages. 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. 63/2024
Case Summary: Reference (T) No. 63/2024 Court Decision: The Industrial Disputes Reference filed by Nilesh Bhanubhai Bhanderi against the Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri (respondent employer) has been rejected/dismissed. Key Findings: The court found that while the petitioner worked as a daily wage laborer for the employer from June 2007 to November 2019 on continuous basis, he failed to establish his case with sufficient documentary evidence despite the employer's obligation to produce muster rolls and wage records. The petitioner's termination on 30/11/2019 without proper notice or severance pay violated the Industrial Disputes Act, but his delayed filing of the case (approximately 5 years later) and inability to substantiate continuous 240-day employment requirement weakened his claim for reinstatement with back wages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts