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
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
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
Disposed
For order
For Argument of Second party
For Argument of Second party
For Argument of Second party
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts