ISHRANI JAYDEEP ABADAN vs MANAGER,THE CO.OPP.BANK OF RAJKOT LTD Advocate - M M TANNA — 22/2024
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 18th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJN160002252024
Filing Number
22/2024
Filing Date
30-05-2024
Registration No
22/2024
Registration Date
30-05-2024
Court
LABOUR COURT, JUNAGADH
Judge
1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT (JD)
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ISHRANI JAYDEEP ABADAN
Adv. A K SOLANKI
Respondent(s)
MANAGER,THE CO.OPP.BANK OF RAJKOT LTD Advocate - M M TANNA
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,THE CO.OPP.BANK OF RAJKOT
Adv. P M VORA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT (JD)
Disposed
For award
For Argument of first party
For Argument of Second party
For Evidence of first party
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | For award |
| 13-03-2026 | For Argument of first party |
| 11-03-2026 | For Argument of Second party |
| 27-02-2026 | For Evidence of first party |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 22/2024 Petitioner: Ishrani Jaydeep Abadan Respondents: Manager & CEO, The Co-operative Bank of Rajkot Ltd Court Decision: The Labour Court rejected the petitioner's plea for reinstatement and other relief. The court found that the bank's disciplinary inquiry, charge sheet, and termination proceedings were legally valid and conducted in accordance with proper procedures. While acknowledging the petitioner's personal hardships (wife's serious illness, financial difficulties), the court determined these circumstances did not override the bank's lawful action to dismiss him for misconduct based on unauthorized absences and other charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 22/2024 Petitioner: Ishrani Jaydeep Abadan Respondents: Manager & CEO, The Co-operative Bank of Rajkot Ltd Court Decision: The Labour Court rejected the petitioner's plea for reinstatement and other relief. The court found that the bank's disciplinary inquiry, charge sheet, and termination proceedings were legally valid and conducted in accordance with proper procedures. While acknowledging the petitioner's personal hardships (wife's serious illness, financial difficulties), the court determined these circumstances did not override the bank's lawful action to dismiss him for misconduct based on unauthorized absences and other charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts