MANOJ PRAVINCHANDRA GOTHI vs PATAN JAIN BHOJAN SHALA — 39/2025

Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

RECO33C1 LC - Recovery 33C (1)

CNR: GJMH140006212025

Filing Number

39/2025

Filing Date

20-Dec-2025

Registration No

39/2025

Registration Date

20-Dec-2025

Court

LABOUR COURT, MAHESANA

Judge

1-Judge, Labour Court

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 13-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANOJ PRAVINCHANDRA GOTHI

    Adv. M H THAKER

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PATAN JAIN BHOJAN SHALA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The court upheld the District Court's order directing the respondent (Patan Jain Fund) to pay the petitioner ₹3,32,040 as arrears of 50% wages for 64 months (from July 2017 to October 2022) plus ₹5,000 in case expenses under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court found that despite receiving the payment order dated November 14, 2025, the respondent failed to pay the amount within the prescribed period and provided no valid defense or documentary evidence of compliance, making the recovery certificate mandatory for enforcement through the Land Revenue Department. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge, Labour Court

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    For Order

    Judge, Labour Court

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  6. 28-Jan-2026

    For Notice Serve to opponent

    Judge, Labour Court

  7. 12-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 20-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 39/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court upheld the District Court's order directing the respondent (Patan Jain Fund) to pay the petitioner ₹3,32,040 as arrears of 50% wages for 64 months (from July 2017 to October 2022) plus ₹5,000 in case expenses under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court found that despite receiving the payment order dated November 14, 2025, the respondent failed to pay the amount within the prescribed period and provided no valid defense or documentary evidence of compliance, making the recovery certificate mandatory for enforcement through the Land Revenue Department. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case