D. R. PARMAR, GOVT LABOUR OFFICER AND GRATUITY PAYMENT INSPECTOR vs DR. KRUPA RAVAL, GUJARAT VIKAS GROUP C/O BHAGYODAY MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL KADI Advocate - H P MAKWANA — 232/2025

Case under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 9. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 16th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJMH140004152025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

232/2025

Filing Date

16-10-2025

Registration No

232/2025

Registration Date

28-10-2025

Court

LABOUR COURT, MAHESANA

Judge

1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Acts & Sections

THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 Section 9

Petitioner(s)

D. R. PARMAR, GOVT LABOUR OFFICER AND GRATUITY PAYMENT INSPECTOR

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

DR. KRUPA RAVAL, GUJARAT VIKAS GROUP C/O BHAGYODAY MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL KADI Advocate - H P MAKWANA

RAJESHBHAI B. VAGHELA

Adv. H P MAKWANA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT

16-03-2026

Disposed

14-03-2026

PLEA

13-03-2026

PLEA

07-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

21-02-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mehsana convicted the accused under Section 6(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act (1972, 1987, 1993) for non-payment of gratuity to an employee. The court sentenced the accused to a fine of ₹5,000 with one month simple imprisonment in default, and imposed an additional fine of ₹10,000, considering the accused's first-time offense, family circumstances, and willingness to confess guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mehsana convicted the accused under Section 6(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act (1972, 1987, 1993) for non-payment of gratuity to an employee. The court sentenced the accused to a fine of ₹5,000 with one month simple imprisonment in default, and imposed an additional fine of ₹10,000, considering the accused's first-time offense, family circumstances, and willingness to confess guilt. 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