Dinesh Kalabhai Rabdiya vs Karya Palak Ijnershri Rajkot Advocate - A G P — 77/2024
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 24th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJM130004302024
Filing Number
77/2024
Filing Date
02-Dec-2024
Registration No
77/2024
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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Dinesh Kalabhai Rabdiya
Adv. P R JOSHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.Karya Palak Ijnershri Rajkot Advocate - A G P
-
2.Nayab Kary Palak Ijnershri Dharol
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: Reference (T) No. 77/2024 Court Decision: The Labor Court dismissed Dinesh Kalabhai Rabdiya's industrial dispute reference against the irrigation department officials. Key Facts: Rabdiya, a daily-wage laborer, worked continuously from 2000 to May 1, 2013, for the irrigation department but was terminated verbally without notice, severance pay, or gratuity. He filed for illegal termination under the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming continuous employment status and seeking reinstatement with back wages. Reasoning: The court found Rabdiya failed to prove continuous employment for 240+ days as required under Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, despite circumstantial evidence. The employer's witness testimony contradicted key details about employment records. The reference was filed 11 years after termination without adequate justification for the delay, making it procedurally defective under amended provisions requiring disputes be filed within one year. 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
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Dec-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 77/2024
Case Summary: Reference (T) No. 77/2024 Court Decision: The Labor Court dismissed Dinesh Kalabhai Rabdiya's industrial dispute reference against the irrigation department officials. Key Facts: Rabdiya, a daily-wage laborer, worked continuously from 2000 to May 1, 2013, for the irrigation department but was terminated verbally without notice, severance pay, or gratuity. He filed for illegal termination under the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming continuous employment status and seeking reinstatement with back wages. Reasoning: The court found Rabdiya failed to prove continuous employment for 240+ days as required under Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, despite circumstantial evidence. The employer's witness testimony contradicted key details about employment records. The reference was filed 11 years after termination without adequate justification for the delay, making it procedurally defective under amended provisions requiring disputes be filed within one year. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts