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

Case disposed

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

PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT,1936 Section 15

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

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

09-03-2026
ORDER

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

LABOUR COURT, SURAT All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case