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.
RECO33C1 LC - Recovery 33C (1)
CNR: GJMH140006212025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
39/2025
Filing Date
20-12-2025
Registration No
39/2025
Registration Date
20-12-2025
Court
LABOUR COURT, MAHESANA
Judge
1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MANOJ PRAVINCHANDRA GOTHI
Adv. M H THAKER
Respondent(s)
PATAN JAIN BHOJAN SHALA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Disposed
For Order
For Notice Serve to opponent
For Notice Serve to opponent
For Notice Serve to opponent
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | For Order | |
| 16-02-2026 | For Notice Serve to opponent | |
| 28-01-2026 | For Notice Serve to opponent | |
| 12-01-2026 | For Notice Serve to opponent |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts