RASIKKUMAR VALJIBHAI, JAMVADA DIST. RAJKOT vs BSNL, RAJKOT Advocate - G K BHATT — 61/2025

Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 17th April 2026.

REF ITC - REFERENCE (I.T.C.)

CNR: GJRJ160001222025

Case disposed

Filing Number

61/2025

Filing Date

20-06-1998

Registration No

61/2025

Registration Date

20-06-1998

Court

INDUSTRIAL COURT, RAJKOT

Judge

1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT

Decision Date

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10

Petitioner(s)

RASIKKUMAR VALJIBHAI, JAMVADA DIST. RAJKOT

Adv. A L SAIYED

Respondent(s)

BSNL, RAJKOT Advocate - G K BHATT

BSNL, DHORAJI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT

17-04-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

For order

05-03-2026

For Argument of Second party

10-02-2026

For Argument of Second party

17-01-2026

For Argument of Second party

Final Orders / Judgements

17-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT
17-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The Industrial Court at Rajkot rejected Rasikkumar Valjibhai's claim for illegal termination from his casual labour position at the Telecom Department (now BSNL) in June 1985. The tribunal found that while the applicant qualified as a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, he failed to prove continuous service of 240+ days as required under Section 25-B, having produced forged work certificates that contradicted his own pleadings and were previously doubted by the Central Administrative Tribunal in 1994. Consequently, provisions mandating retrenchment procedures under Sections 25-F, G, and H were inapplicable, and the case was dismissed with no relief awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Industrial Court at Rajkot rejected Rasikkumar Valjibhai's claim for illegal termination from his casual labour position at the Telecom Department (now BSNL) in June 1985. The tribunal found that while the applicant qualified as a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, he failed to prove continuous service of 240+ days as required under Section 25-B, having produced forged work certificates that contradicted his own pleadings and were previously doubted by the Central Administrative Tribunal in 1994. Consequently, provisions mandating retrenchment procedures under Sections 25-F, G, and H were inapplicable, and the case was dismissed with no relief awarded. 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

INDUSTRIAL COURT, RAJKOT All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case