GOKALBHAI SHANKARBHAI CHAUDHRI vs MANAGER SHRI, MAHESANA DISTRICT SAHAKARI DUTH UTPADAK SANGH LTD. Advocate - V S TRIVEDI — 62/2017

Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 033C,. Status: For Evidence of Applicant. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.

RECO33C2 LC - Recovery 33C (2)

CNR: GJMH140003372017

For Evidence of Applicant

Next Hearing

24th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

62/2017

Filing Date

23-11-2017

Registration No

62/2017

Registration Date

23-11-2017

Court

LABOUR COURT, MAHESANA

Judge

1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT

Acts & Sections

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 Section 033C,

Petitioner(s)

GOKALBHAI SHANKARBHAI CHAUDHRI

Adv. A R SHAHJADA

Respondent(s)

MANAGER SHRI, MAHESANA DISTRICT SAHAKARI DUTH UTPADAK SANGH LTD. Advocate - V S TRIVEDI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT

07-04-2026

For Evidence of Applicant

06-04-2026

For Evidence of opponent

09-03-2026

For Evidence of opponent

19-02-2026

For Evidence of opponent

09-02-2026

For Evidence of opponent

Interim Orders

17-04-2025
ORDER

Summary: The Mehsana Labour Court dismissed a recovery petition filed by Chouri Goklabhai Shankarbhai under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner claimed ₹12,20,949 from the Mehsana District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union, alleging unpaid wages, earned leave encashment, overtime compensation, bonus differential, and interim relief. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the claimed amount and did not establish a legal entitlement to the claimed sum, rendering the recovery petition dismissible for lack of proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Mehsana Labour Court dismissed a recovery petition filed by Chouri Goklabhai Shankarbhai under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner claimed ₹12,20,949 from the Mehsana District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union, alleging unpaid wages, earned leave encashment, overtime compensation, bonus differential, and interim relief. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the claimed amount and did not establish a legal entitlement to the claimed sum, rendering the recovery petition dismissible for lack of proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

LABOUR COURT, MAHESANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case