Kamleshgiri Shivgiri Goswami vs Grasim Industries Limited Unit Indian Reyon Advocate - H D RATHOD — 10/2025

Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 16th March 2026.

REFER T LC - Referance T

CNR: GJJN160003142025

Case disposed

Filing Number

10/2025

Filing Date

19-06-2025

Registration No

10/2025

Registration Date

19-06-2025

Court

LABOUR COURT, JUNAGADH

Judge

1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT (JD)

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10

Petitioner(s)

Kamleshgiri Shivgiri Goswami

Adv. H V DHORAJIYA

Respondent(s)

Grasim Industries Limited Unit Indian Reyon Advocate - H D RATHOD

Hearing History

Judge: 1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT (JD)

16-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

For award

09-03-2026

For Argument of Second party

02-03-2026

For Evidence of first party

02-02-2026

For Evidence of Second party

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: REF(T) No. 10/2025 Court: Labour Court, Junagadh Petitioner: Kamleshgiri Shivgiri Goswami Respondent: Grasim Industries Limited (Indian Rayon Unit) Decision The court directed that the petitioner be reinstated to his position at Grasim Industries with full back wages and benefits, finding the termination from April 2001 to be illegal. The court rejected the respondent company's objection based on delay in raising the dispute, holding that the worker's long wait for departmental appeal decision justified the reference and that the company's inaction cannot penalize the employee. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

31-12-2025
ORDER
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: REF(T) No. 10/2025 Court: Labour Court, Junagadh Petitioner: Kamleshgiri Shivgiri Goswami Respondent: Grasim Industries Limited (Indian Rayon Unit) Decision The court directed that the petitioner be reinstated to his position at Grasim Industries with full back wages and benefits, finding the termination from April 2001 to be illegal. The court rejected the respondent company's objection based on delay in raising the dispute, holding that the worker's long wait for departmental appeal decision justified the reference and that the company's inaction cannot penalize the employee. 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