ABHILAKH SHINH YADAV vs B.KO.TWITEX PVT.LTD. — 172/2018
Case under Payment of Wages Act,1936 Section 15(2). Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 09th March 2026.
PWAPP-LC - P.W. APPLICATION
CNR: GJSR140010982018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
172/2018
Filing Date
25-07-2018
Registration No
172/2018
Registration Date
25-07-2018
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)
ABHILAKH SHINH YADAV
Adv. RAVIBHAI CHAUDHRY
Respondent(s)
B.KO.TWITEX PVT.LTD.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Disposed
For Order
For Evidence of opponent
For Evidence of opponent
For Evidence of Applicant
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-02-2026 | For Order | |
| 21-01-2026 | For Evidence of opponent | |
| 07-01-2026 | For Evidence of opponent | |
| 17-12-2025 | For Evidence of Applicant |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Labor Court (Surat) dismissed the workers' petition seeking unpaid wages and benefits. The court found that the company's defense—that only one worker had actually worked 15 days in July 2018 for whom ₹6,000 was paid—was credible, and no employer-employee relationship existed with the other workers listed in the petition. The court ruled against the workers' claim for back wages, overtime compensation, bonus, and other statutory benefits, holding they failed to prove their entitlement to these amounts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Labor Court (Surat) dismissed the workers' petition seeking unpaid wages and benefits. The court found that the company's defense—that only one worker had actually worked 15 days in July 2018 for whom ₹6,000 was paid—was credible, and no employer-employee relationship existed with the other workers listed in the petition. The court ruled against the workers' claim for back wages, overtime compensation, bonus, and other statutory benefits, holding they failed to prove their entitlement to these amounts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts