ARVINDBHAI KANJIBHAI SUYANI vs INDIAN RAYON AND INDUSTRIES (GRASIM INDUSTRIES) VERAVAL Advocate - Y C RAJYAGURU — 4/2025
Case under The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10(1). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 16th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJN160001442025
Filing Number
4/2025
Filing Date
07-03-2025
Registration No
4/2025
Registration Date
07-03-2025
Court
LABOUR COURT, JUNAGADH
Judge
1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT (JD)
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ARVINDBHAI KANJIBHAI SUYANI
Adv. P A TANK
Respondent(s)
INDIAN RAYON AND INDUSTRIES (GRASIM INDUSTRIES) VERAVAL Advocate - Y C RAJYAGURU
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT (JD)
Disposed
For award
For Argument of Second party
For Evidence of first party
For Evidence of Second party
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | For award |
| 09-03-2026 | For Argument of Second party |
| 05-03-2026 | For Evidence of first party |
| 02-03-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: REF(T) No. 04/2025 Court: Labour Court, Junagadh Parties: Arvindbhai Kanjibhai Suyani (Petitioner) v. Indian Rayon and Industries (Grasim Industries), Veraval Decision: The Labour Court REJECTED the petitioner's industrial dispute reference, finding no "existing dispute" exists due to an unexplained 24-year delay. The worker was terminated in June 2001 but filed the reference only in 2025, with no adequate explanation for the inordinate delay. Citing limitation law principles and Supreme Court precedent, the court held that without sufficient cause to explain such prolonged inaction, the dispute became stale and cannot be entertained under the Industrial Disputes Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: REF(T) No. 04/2025 Court: Labour Court, Junagadh Parties: Arvindbhai Kanjibhai Suyani (Petitioner) v. Indian Rayon and Industries (Grasim Industries), Veraval Decision: The Labour Court REJECTED the petitioner's industrial dispute reference, finding no "existing dispute" exists due to an unexplained 24-year delay. The worker was terminated in June 2001 but filed the reference only in 2025, with no adequate explanation for the inordinate delay. Citing limitation law principles and Supreme Court precedent, the court held that without sufficient cause to explain such prolonged inaction, the dispute became stale and cannot be entertained under the Industrial Disputes Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts