SAURASHTRA EMPLOYEES UNION vs BSNL, SURENDRANAGAR Advocate - G K BHATT — 60/2025
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 30th March 2026.
REF ITC - REFERENCE (I.T.C.)
CNR: GJRJ160001212025
Filing Number
60/2025
Filing Date
20-06-1998
Registration No
60/2025
Registration Date
20-06-1998
Court
INDUSTRIAL COURT, RAJKOT
Judge
1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SAURASHTRA EMPLOYEES UNION
Respondent(s)
BSNL, SURENDRANAGAR Advocate - G K BHATT
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Disposed
For Argument of Second party
For Argument of Second party
For Evidence of Second party
For Evidence of Second party
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | For Argument of Second party |
| 05-03-2026 | For Argument of Second party |
| 17-02-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
| 04-02-2026 | For Evidence of Second party |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Industrial Court, Rajkot rejected an employee's claim for reinstatement against the Telecom Department (now BSNL). Although the court confirmed the applicant was a workman employed as casual labor and was terminated (not voluntarily abandoned), it found he failed to prove the required 240 days of continuous service stipulated under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act; with only 135 days worked, he was ineligible for the statutory protections requiring notice, compensation, and adherence to retrenchment procedures. Consequently, the applicant received no relief or damages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Industrial Court, Rajkot rejected an employee's claim for reinstatement against the Telecom Department (now BSNL). Although the court confirmed the applicant was a workman employed as casual labor and was terminated (not voluntarily abandoned), it found he failed to prove the required 240 days of continuous service stipulated under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act; with only 135 days worked, he was ineligible for the statutory protections requiring notice, compensation, and adherence to retrenchment procedures. Consequently, the applicant received no relief or damages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts