SALIMBEG SAIYADBEG MIRZA vs CHIEF OFFICERSHRI, VISNAGAR NAGAR PALIKA Advocate - V S TRIVEDI — 56/2017
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 010,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th March 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJMH140002932017
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
56/2017
Filing Date
26-10-2017
Registration No
56/2017
Registration Date
26-10-2017
Court
LABOUR COURT, MAHESANA
Judge
1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SALIMBEG SAIYADBEG MIRZA
Adv. R K CHAUDHARY
Respondent(s)
CHIEF OFFICERSHRI, VISNAGAR NAGAR PALIKA Advocate - V S TRIVEDI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Disposed
For award
For Argument of Second party
For Evidence of first party
For Evidence of first party
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | For award | |
| 24-02-2026 | For Argument of Second party | |
| 16-02-2026 | For Evidence of first party | |
| 28-01-2026 | For Evidence of first party |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Mehsana Labor Court rejected the reference of Mirza Salimbeg Saiydbeg against Visnagar Municipality, holding that he failed to prove he was wrongfully and illegally terminated on 06/07/2017 through an oral order in violation of natural justice principles and the ID Act. The court found the worker did not substantiate his claims with documentary evidence regarding continuous employment, 240+ days of annual work, or permanent status. Accordingly, the court dismissed the reference and rejected his claim for reinstatement with back wages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Mehsana Labor Court rejected the reference of Mirza Salimbeg Saiydbeg against Visnagar Municipality, holding that he failed to prove he was wrongfully and illegally terminated on 06/07/2017 through an oral order in violation of natural justice principles and the ID Act. The court found the worker did not substantiate his claims with documentary evidence regarding continuous employment, 240+ days of annual work, or permanent status. Accordingly, the court dismissed the reference and rejected his claim for reinstatement with back wages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts