DILIPBHAI NANABHAI VADI vs ADHIKSHAK EJNERSHRI PANAM YOJANA VARTUL, GODHRA — 119/2025
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Uncontested--JUDGEMENT on 07th May 2026.
REFER T LC - Referance T
CNR: GJPM130006632025
Filing Number
119/2025
Filing Date
01-Aug-2025
Registration No
119/2025
Registration Date
01-Aug-2025
Court
LABOUR COURT, GODHRA
Judge
3-Judge, Labour Court (Jd)
Decision Date
07-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 07-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DILIPBHAI NANABHAI VADI
Adv. S A BHOI
Respondent(s)
-
1.ADHIKSHAK EJNERSHRI PANAM YOJANA VARTUL, GODHRA
-
2.NAYAB KARYPALAK EJNERSHRI BHADAR NAHER VITRAN PETA VIBHAG LUNAVADA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-May-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: The Labour Court, Godhra dismissed petitioner Dilipbhai Nanabhai Vadi's reference under Industrial Disputes Act 1947, Section 10(1)(d) seeking reinstatement with full back wages. The court found that the respondent (Second Party) failed to appear despite notice, did not file a written statement, and provided no supporting documents or evidence to defend its position. The court concluded that since the case had been pending since 2025 without substantive progress or the respondent's participation, the reference should be dismissed without granting any relief regarding back wages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-May-2026
Disposed
Judge, Labour Court (Jd)
-
13-Mar-2026
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court (Jd)
-
27-Jan-2026
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court (Jd)
-
05-Dec-2025
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court (Jd)
-
27-Oct-2025
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court (Jd)
-
13-Oct-2025
For Statement of Claim
Judge, Labour Court (Jd)
-
06-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
01-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 119/2025
Case Summary: The Labour Court, Godhra dismissed petitioner Dilipbhai Nanabhai Vadi's reference under Industrial Disputes Act 1947, Section 10(1)(d) seeking reinstatement with full back wages. The court found that the respondent (Second Party) failed to appear despite notice, did not file a written statement, and provided no supporting documents or evidence to defend its position. The court concluded that since the case had been pending since 2025 without substantive progress or the respondent's participation, the reference should be dismissed without granting any relief regarding back wages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts