SARJU MAHADEV NONIYA vs KASA SECURITY SERVICES — 86/2024
Case under Payment of Wages Act,1936 Section 15. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 23rd March 2026.
PWAPP-LC - P.W. APPLICATION
CNR: GJSR140018632024
Filing Number
86/2024
Filing Date
04-Sep-2024
Registration No
86/2024
Registration Date
04-Sep-2024
Court
LABOUR COURT, SURAT
Judge
4-Judge, Labour Court
Decision Date
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Last updated 16-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SARJU MAHADEV NONIYA
Adv. RAVINDRA OAK
Respondent(s)
-
1.KASA SECURITY SERVICES
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal for wage recovery under Section 15 of the Wage Act, as the petitioner failed to appear before the court for an extended period and made no effort to pursue the case. The court found that without proper diligence, sufficient grounds, or supporting documents from the petitioner, the appeal could not proceed and was dismissed due to abandonment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judge, Labour Court
-
09-Mar-2026
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
19-Jan-2026
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
08-Dec-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
13-Oct-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
25-Aug-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
07-Jul-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court
-
12-May-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court (Jd)
-
24-Mar-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court (Jd)
-
27-Jan-2025
For Evidence of Applicant
Judge, Labour Court (Jd)
-
16-Dec-2024
For Reply of opponent
Judge, Labour Court (Jd)
-
14-Oct-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Sep-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 86/2024
The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal for wage recovery under Section 15 of the Wage Act, as the petitioner failed to appear before the court for an extended period and made no effort to pursue the case. The court found that without proper diligence, sufficient grounds, or supporting documents from the petitioner, the appeal could not proceed and was dismissed due to abandonment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts