THE DIRECTOR SARADAR VALLABHBHAI NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSVNIT vs THE SECRETARY SURAT JILLA BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH Advocate - M.I.SHAIKH — 10/2025
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 11(1). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 08th May 2026.
MISCAPP-ITC - MISC. APPLICATION (I.T.C.)
CNR: GJSR130001732025
Filing Number
10/2025
Filing Date
02-11-2020
Registration No
10/2025
Registration Date
02-11-2020
Court
INDUSTRIAL COURT, SURAT
Judge
1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE DIRECTOR SARADAR VALLABHBHAI NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSVNIT
Adv. A.P.SHAH
THE GENERAL SECRATARY GUJARAT AUDHYOGIK KAMADAR MAHAMANDAL
Respondent(s)
THE SECRETARY SURAT JILLA BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH Advocate - M.I.SHAIKH
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 10-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 03-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 13-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Misc.Appli.(I.T.C.) No.10 of 2025 Court Decision: The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the petitioner institution's plea for revision of an arbitral award. The tribunal found that the petitioner institution failed to provide adequate reasons for challenging the award within the statutory 30-day period and that subsequent applications for rectification lacked sufficient grounds. The court held that while fraud requires clear proof and cannot be assumed based on procedural delays alone, the petitioner's own negligence, lack of diligence, and administrative failures precluded relief. The award was upheld as valid, and no cost was imposed on either party. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Misc.Appli.(I.T.C.) No.10 of 2025 Court Decision: The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the petitioner institution's plea for revision of an arbitral award. The tribunal found that the petitioner institution failed to provide adequate reasons for challenging the award within the statutory 30-day period and that subsequent applications for rectification lacked sufficient grounds. The court held that while fraud requires clear proof and cannot be assumed based on procedural delays alone, the petitioner's own negligence, lack of diligence, and administrative failures precluded relief. The award was upheld as valid, and no cost was imposed on either party. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts