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
JudegementView PDF
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