SHAIKH FIROZBHAI HUSENBHAI vs MAHASAGAR TRAVELS, KALWA CHOWK, JUNAGADH-362001 Advocate - R H DHAMANI — 15/2024

Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 24th April 2026.

REFER T LC - Referance T

CNR: GJJN160001412024

Case disposed

Filing Number

15/2024

Filing Date

28-03-2024

Registration No

15/2024

Registration Date

28-03-2024

Court

LABOUR COURT, JUNAGADH

Judge

1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT (JD)

Decision Date

24th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10

Petitioner(s)

SHAIKH FIROZBHAI HUSENBHAI

Adv. J M HALEPOTRA

Respondent(s)

MAHASAGAR TRAVELS, KALWA CHOWK, JUNAGADH-362001 Advocate - R H DHAMANI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT (JD)

24-04-2026

Disposed

16-04-2026

For award

13-04-2026

For award

08-04-2026

For award

06-04-2026

For Argument of first party

Final Orders / Judgements

24-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

SUMMARY The Labour Court of Junagadh held that petitioner Shaikh Firozbhai Husenbhai, a driver employed by Mahasagar Travels from March 1, 2014, was illegally terminated on April 3, 2023, without following due process under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court found the employer's dismissal violated statutory procedures and ordered reinstatement with backwages for the 240-day period of continuous service during which the worker remained unemployed. The employer failed to provide any substantive defense or evidence contradicting the worker's claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The Labour Court of Junagadh held that petitioner Shaikh Firozbhai Husenbhai, a driver employed by Mahasagar Travels from March 1, 2014, was illegally terminated on April 3, 2023, without following due process under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court found the employer's dismissal violated statutory procedures and ordered reinstatement with backwages for the 240-day period of continuous service during which the worker remained unemployed. The employer failed to provide any substantive defense or evidence contradicting the worker's claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

LABOUR COURT, JUNAGADH All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case