Manojgar Shivgar Goswami vs Grasim Industries Limited, Unit Indian Reyon Advocate - H D RATHOD — 13/2025
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 16th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJN160003172025
Filing Number
13/2025
Filing Date
19-06-2025
Registration No
13/2025
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)
Manojgar Shivgar 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)
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: Manojgar Shivgar Goswami v. Grasim Industries Limited Case No. 13/2025 | Labour Court, Junagadh The Labour Court rejected the worker's claim for reinstatement after termination in 2001. The worker was dismissed without proper notice after working as a temporary employee on fixed-term contracts. The court held that raising the dispute 24 years later, without adequate explanation for delay and after accepting gratuity in 2005, constituted an "existing dispute" under industrial law. The reference was found valid despite delay, but relief was denied due to unexplained inordinate delay in pursuing the claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Manojgar Shivgar Goswami v. Grasim Industries Limited Case No. 13/2025 | Labour Court, Junagadh The Labour Court rejected the worker's claim for reinstatement after termination in 2001. The worker was dismissed without proper notice after working as a temporary employee on fixed-term contracts. The court held that raising the dispute 24 years later, without adequate explanation for delay and after accepting gratuity in 2005, constituted an "existing dispute" under industrial law. The reference was found valid despite delay, but relief was denied due to unexplained inordinate delay in pursuing the claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts