Sanjaybhai Parsotambhai Rathod vs Grasim Industries Limited, Unit Indian Reyon Advocate - H D RATHOD — 12/2025
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 16th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJN160003162025
Filing Number
12/2025
Filing Date
19-06-2025
Registration No
12/2025
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
Petitioner(s)
Sanjaybhai Parsotambhai Rathod
Adv. H V DHORAJIYA
Respondent(s)
Grasim Industries Limited, Unit Indian Reyon Advocate - H D RATHOD
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 |
| 02-03-2026 | For Evidence of first party |
| 02-02-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Sanjaybhai Parsotambhai Rathod vs. Grasim Industries Limited Court Decision: The Labour Court dismissed the worker's petition for reinstatement. The court found that the worker raised an industrial dispute 24 years after being terminated in 2001, without providing adequate explanation for the delay, thereby making the reference invalid and the dispute stale. Key Reasoning: The court applied principles of limitation and statutory law, holding that unexplained, inordinate delays in raising disputes cannot be condoned. It noted the worker had accepted provident fund settlement in 2005 and failed to pursue departmental remedies promptly, demonstrating acquiescence to termination rather than immediate opposition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Sanjaybhai Parsotambhai Rathod vs. Grasim Industries Limited Court Decision: The Labour Court dismissed the worker's petition for reinstatement. The court found that the worker raised an industrial dispute 24 years after being terminated in 2001, without providing adequate explanation for the delay, thereby making the reference invalid and the dispute stale. Key Reasoning: The court applied principles of limitation and statutory law, holding that unexplained, inordinate delays in raising disputes cannot be condoned. It noted the worker had accepted provident fund settlement in 2005 and failed to pursue departmental remedies promptly, demonstrating acquiescence to termination rather than immediate opposition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts