SHRI D. S. BALYA, GOVERNMENT LABOUR OFFICER AND INSPECTOR UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT, TAPI vs PRASHANT SECURITY SERVICES, (ESTABLISHMENT) — 217/2026

Case under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Section 22A,18,26D,26(2),26B(1),21(1)(i). Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJSR140003562026

Filing Number

217/2026

Filing Date

04-Feb-2026

Registration No

217/2026

Registration Date

04-Feb-2026

Court

LABOUR COURT, SURAT

Judge

1-Judge, Labour Court

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 31-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Section 22A,18,26D,26(2),26B(1),21(1)(i)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRI D. S. BALYA, GOVERNMENT LABOUR OFFICER AND INSPECTOR UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT, TAPI

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRASHANT SECURITY SERVICES, (ESTABLISHMENT)

  2. 2.SHRI SUNILKUMAR CHAUDHARY, (PARTNERSHRI)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case 217/2026 Summary: The court convicted Prashant Security Services and partner Sunil Kumar Chaudhary of violating the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Gujarat Rules 1961 (Rules 26(D), 26(2), 26(B)(1), 21(1)). After the defendants voluntarily confessed to the charges, the court imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 per violation (totaling Rs. 16,000), with 10 days simple imprisonment as alternate punishment if the fine remains unpaid, considering mitigating factors like absence of criminal intent and business impact. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge, Labour Court

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Plea

    Judge, Labour Court

  5. 28-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 04-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 217/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 217/2026 Summary: The court convicted Prashant Security Services and partner Sunil Kumar Chaudhary of violating the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Gujarat Rules 1961 (Rules 26(D), 26(2), 26(B)(1), 21(1)). After the defendants voluntarily confessed to the charges, the court imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 per violation (totaling Rs. 16,000), with 10 days simple imprisonment as alternate punishment if the fine remains unpaid, considering mitigating factors like absence of criminal intent and business impact. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case