Ramchandar Rayasang Parmar vs Ceema Electricals Lighting Products India Pvt Lmited Advocate - M.G.Memon — 147/2024
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10(1)(c). Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 01st April 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJKH140003202024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
147/2024
Filing Date
15-07-2024
Registration No
147/2024
Registration Date
15-07-2024
Court
LABOUR COURT, NADIAD
Judge
1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramchandar Rayasang Parmar
Adv. D.H.Shah
Respondent(s)
Ceema Electricals Lighting Products India Pvt Lmited Advocate - M.G.Memon
Om Shiva Enterprise
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Disposed
For award
For Argument of Second party
For Evidence of Second party
For Evidence of Second party
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-03-2026 | For award | |
| 16-03-2026 | For Argument of Second party | |
| 09-03-2026 | For Evidence of Second party | |
| 05-03-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court partially allowed the applicant's reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. The applicant, who worked as a packing worker for Defendant No. 1 (Sima Electrical) through contractor Defendant No. 2 (Omshiva Enterprises), was illegally terminated without proper procedure. The court found the applicant was entitled to reinstatement with back wages and directed payment of ₹50,000 as compensation instead, along with full back wages from termination until reinstatement, as the principal employer failed to follow statutory procedures under the Contract Labour Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court partially allowed the applicant's reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. The applicant, who worked as a packing worker for Defendant No. 1 (Sima Electrical) through contractor Defendant No. 2 (Omshiva Enterprises), was illegally terminated without proper procedure. The court found the applicant was entitled to reinstatement with back wages and directed payment of ₹50,000 as compensation instead, along with full back wages from termination until reinstatement, as the principal employer failed to follow statutory procedures under the Contract Labour Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts