Bharatbhai Shamjibhai Mungra vs Kary Palak Ijnershri Rajkot Advocate - A G P — 73/2024

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

Case disposed

REFER T LC - Referance T

CNR: GJJM130004262024

Filing Number

73/2024

Filing Date

02-Dec-2024

Registration No

73/2024

Registration Date

02-Dec-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.Bharatbhai Shamjibhai Mungra

    Adv. P R JOSHI

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri Dharol

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 73/2024 Court Decision: The Labor Court rejected the petitioner Bharatbhai Shamjibhai Mungra's reference against the irrigation department respondents. The court found that the petitioner was terminated from his position as a daily-wage laborer without following proper dismissal procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the court dismissed the reference on technical grounds, including the petitioner's significant delay in filing the case and failure to substantiate continuous employment claims with adequate documentary evidence, despite establishing unlawful termination of service. 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

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 02-Dec-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 73/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 73/2024 Court Decision: The Labor Court rejected the petitioner Bharatbhai Shamjibhai Mungra's reference against the irrigation department respondents. The court found that the petitioner was terminated from his position as a daily-wage laborer without following proper dismissal procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the court dismissed the reference on technical grounds, including the petitioner's significant delay in filing the case and failure to substantiate continuous employment claims with adequate documentary evidence, despite establishing unlawful termination of service. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case