Dr. PITAMBAR PRADHAN vs PRAMUKH / MANTRI / KHAJANCHEE, TIRUPATI TEXTILES MARKET, MENTENANCE SERVICE ASSOCIOSION, Advocate - J.B.BARVALIYA — 148/2018
Case under Payment of Wages Act,1936 Section 15. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 09th March 2026.
PWAPP-LC - P.W. APPLICATION
CNR: GJSR140008092018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
148/2018
Filing Date
26-06-2018
Registration No
148/2018
Registration Date
26-06-2018
Court
LABOUR COURT, SURAT
Judge
2-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dr. PITAMBAR PRADHAN
Adv. RAVIBHAI CHAODHARI
Respondent(s)
PRAMUKH / MANTRI / KHAJANCHEE, TIRUPATI TEXTILES MARKET, MENTENANCE SERVICE ASSOCIOSION, Advocate - J.B.BARVALIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Disposed
For Order
For Arguement of Applicant
For Arguement of Applicant
For Evidence of opponent
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-02-2026 | For Order | |
| 11-02-2026 | For Arguement of Applicant | |
| 21-01-2026 | For Arguement of Applicant | |
| 07-01-2026 | For Evidence of opponent |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Payment of Wages Authority (Surat) dismissed the workers' petition seeking unpaid wages and benefits. The court found that the workers failed to prove they were direct employees of the company; instead, they were engaged through a contractor. The court rejected their claims for ₹2,87,50,000 in outstanding wages, overtime pay, bonuses, and statutory benefits, ruling that their employment relationship and payment obligations lay with the contractor, not the employer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Payment of Wages Authority (Surat) dismissed the workers' petition seeking unpaid wages and benefits. The court found that the workers failed to prove they were direct employees of the company; instead, they were engaged through a contractor. The court rejected their claims for ₹2,87,50,000 in outstanding wages, overtime pay, bonuses, and statutory benefits, ruling that their employment relationship and payment obligations lay with the contractor, not the employer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts