RAJENDRABHAI AVCHIT PATIL vs AGRAWAL TEXTILE PRINTING MILLS Advocate - M N shah G/437/2001 — 52/2023
Case under Gujarat Industrial Relation Act, 1946 Section 84. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 09th April 2026.
APPEAL IC - APPEAL I.C.
CNR: GJSR130000822023
Filing Number
52/2023
Filing Date
24-Apr-2023
Registration No
52/2023
Registration Date
24-Apr-2023
Court
INDUSTRIAL COURT, SURAT
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court
Decision Date
09-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 16-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAJENDRABHAI AVCHIT PATIL
Adv. DIPAK K.PIPRODIA
Respondent(s)
-
1.AGRAWAL TEXTILE PRINTING MILLS Advocate - M N shah G/437/2001
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Apr-2026
Judegement
Summary The court upheld the Labor Court's decision dismissing the employee's unfair dismissal claim. The court found that the respondent company was justified in terminating the appellant's 20-year employment without providing mandatory statutory documents (ID card, salary slip, discharge letter) because no employer-employee relationship was formally established—the employee was hired informally without proper documentation, and the company never recognized him as a regular employee, thus making the termination lawful and the appeal lacking merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Apr-2026
Disposed
Member, Industrial Court
-
09-Mar-2026
Judgement
Member, Industrial Court
-
23-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
02-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
05-Jan-2026
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
22-Dec-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
15-Dec-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
10-Nov-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
06-Oct-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
15-Sep-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
18-Aug-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
21-Jul-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
12-Jul-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
07-Jul-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
30-Jun-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
12-May-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
21-Apr-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
17-Mar-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
24-Feb-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
10-Feb-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
13-Jan-2025
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
16-Dec-2024
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
02-Dec-2024
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
18-Nov-2024
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
30-Sep-2024
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
02-Sep-2024
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
22-Jul-2024
For R&P
Member, Industrial Court
-
24-Jun-2024
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
29-Apr-2024
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
18-Mar-2024
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
19-Feb-2024
Reply To Objection
Member, Industrial Court
-
22-Jan-2024
Reply To Objection
Member, Industrial Court
-
11-Dec-2023
Final Arguments
Member, Industrial Court
-
30-Oct-2023
Service Of Process
Member, Industrial Court
-
09-Oct-2023
Service Of Process
Member, Industrial Court
-
15-Sep-2023
Service Of Process
Member, Industrial Court
-
18-Aug-2023
Service Of Process
Member, Industrial Court
-
11-Aug-2023
Service Of Process
Member, Industrial Court
-
14-Jul-2023
Service Of Process
Member, Industrial Court
-
12-Jun-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Apr-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 52/2023
Summary The court upheld the Labor Court's decision dismissing the employee's unfair dismissal claim. The court found that the respondent company was justified in terminating the appellant's 20-year employment without providing mandatory statutory documents (ID card, salary slip, discharge letter) because no employer-employee relationship was formally established—the employee was hired informally without proper documentation, and the company never recognized him as a regular employee, thus making the termination lawful and the appeal lacking merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts