Jayantkumar D. Fofandi vs GENERAL MANAGER, HR, GRASIM IND.LTD., UNIT INDIAN REYON, VERAVAL Advocate - H D RATHOD — 33/2025
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 16th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJJN160004212025
Filing Number
33/2025
Filing Date
15-07-2025
Registration No
33/2025
Registration Date
15-07-2025
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)
Jayantkumar D. Fofandi
Adv. H V DHORAJIYA
Respondent(s)
GENERAL MANAGER, HR, GRASIM IND.LTD., UNIT INDIAN REYON, VERAVAL 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 |
| 05-03-2026 | For Evidence of first party |
| 02-03-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Jayantkumar D. Fofandi v. GRASIM Industries Ltd. (REF(T) 33/2025) Decision: The Labour Court allowed the worker's petition for reinstatement with full back wages. The court rejected the employer's defense based on delay in raising the dispute, finding that the worker was justified in awaiting resolution of a pending departmental appeal before filing the industrial dispute. Key Reasoning: The court held that where a worker has filed a departmental appeal that remains unaddressed by management, the worker cannot be penalized for delay in raising an industrial dispute. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court determined the reference was valid despite the time gap, as the dispute was "live" and the delay was attributable to management's inaction rather than worker negligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Jayantkumar D. Fofandi v. GRASIM Industries Ltd. (REF(T) 33/2025) Decision: The Labour Court allowed the worker's petition for reinstatement with full back wages. The court rejected the employer's defense based on delay in raising the dispute, finding that the worker was justified in awaiting resolution of a pending departmental appeal before filing the industrial dispute. Key Reasoning: The court held that where a worker has filed a departmental appeal that remains unaddressed by management, the worker cannot be penalized for delay in raising an industrial dispute. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court determined the reference was valid despite the time gap, as the dispute was "live" and the delay was attributable to management's inaction rather than worker negligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts