SHRI VIREDRA PASVAN FOR PARISHISHT-WPRKERS DIRECTOR OF A vs LARSEN AND TURBO Advocate - N B SHAH — 159/2020
Case under Payment of Wages Act,1936 Section 15,. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 30th March 2026.
PWAPP-LC - P.W. APPLICATION
CNR: GJSR140012282020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
159/2020
Filing Date
11-12-2020
Registration No
159/2020
Registration Date
11-12-2020
Court
LABOUR COURT, SURAT
Judge
1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHRI VIREDRA PASVAN FOR PARISHISHT-WPRKERS DIRECTOR OF A
Adv. VIREDRA PASVAN
Respondent(s)
LARSEN AND TURBO Advocate - N B SHAH
RANG ENGINEERS
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Disposed
For Evidence of opponent
For Evidence of opponent
For Evidence of opponent
For Evidence of Applicant
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-03-2026 | For Evidence of opponent | |
| 18-03-2026 | For Evidence of opponent | |
| 09-03-2026 | For Evidence of opponent | |
| 09-02-2026 | For Evidence of Applicant |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Court Decision The Labor Court of Surat rejected the worker's application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, holding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his claim for pending wages and other statutory benefits from the employer. The court found that the worker did not substantiate his allegations through testimony or documentary proof, and therefore dismissed the petition as unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Court Decision The Labor Court of Surat rejected the worker's application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, holding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his claim for pending wages and other statutory benefits from the employer. The court found that the worker did not substantiate his allegations through testimony or documentary proof, and therefore dismissed the petition as unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts