SHARDABEN NARANBHAI RATHVA, vs PALAV SINTHETICKS PVT., LTD., — 3/2011
Case under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 Section 032. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 16th March 2026.
WC-MIS-LC - W.C. MISC. APPLICATION UNDER RULE
CNR: GJSR140015172011
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
3/2011
Filing Date
04-04-2011
Registration No
3/2011
Registration Date
04-04-2011
Court
LABOUR COURT, SURAT
Judge
4-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHARDABEN NARANBHAI RATHVA,
Adv. J.B.JARIWALA
NIRUBEN NARANBHAI RATHVA
Adv. J.B.JARIWALA
SARLABEN NARANBHAI RATHVA
Adv. J.B.JARIWALA
KUMADBEN NARANBHAI RATHVA
Adv. J.B.JARIWALA
Respondent(s)
PALAV SINTHETICKS PVT., LTD.,
Hearing History
Judge: 4-JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 02-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 23-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 16-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court partially allowed the workers' compensation claim and directed Palv Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. to pay the claimants ₹2,05,697 (including compensation of ₹80,964, interest at 6% from January 6, 1994, penalty of ₹40,332, and costs of ₹2,000) under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court found that the deceased worker died due to electrocution while employed, entitling the dependents to compensation, but rejected certain procedural objections raised by the employer regarding recovery proceedings under Section 31 of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court partially allowed the workers' compensation claim and directed Palv Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. to pay the claimants ₹2,05,697 (including compensation of ₹80,964, interest at 6% from January 6, 1994, penalty of ₹40,332, and costs of ₹2,000) under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court found that the deceased worker died due to electrocution while employed, entitling the dependents to compensation, but rejected certain procedural objections raised by the employer regarding recovery proceedings under Section 31 of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts