Sushila Harikeshkumar Gaud vs Mr. Shahensha Hussain Sayyed — 222/2024

Case under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 Section 4. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Appln.WCA.I - I

CNR: MHLC040006122024

Filing Number

612/2024

Filing Date

11-Jun-2024

Registration No

222/2024

Registration Date

12-Jun-2024

Court

Labour Court,Thane

Judge

1-Judge, First Labour Court

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 Section 4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sushila Harikeshkumar Gaud

    Adv. Vishnu D. Gupta

  2. 2.Ku. Shushboo Harikeshkumar Gaud

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Mr. Shahensha Hussain Sayyed

  2. 2.The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary: The First Labour Court, Thane allowed the restoration application filed by the legal heirs (widow and daughter) of deceased worker Harikeshkumar Gaud. The original compensation claim under the Employees' Compensation Act, filed in 2011 following an employment injury, was dismissed in default in 2013 due to lack of advocate follow-up after the worker's death in August 2011. The court found good and sufficient cause for restoration, holding that the applicants should not suffer due to lack of communication with their advocate, and noting that the Employees' Compensation Act is social welfare legislation. The court restored the original application to its file and permitted the legal heirs to proceed with the matter on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge, First Labour Court

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    Judge, First Labour Court

  5. 24-Feb-2026

    Judgment

    Judge, First Labour Court

  6. 10-Feb-2026

    Judgment

    Judge, First Labour Court

  7. 03-Feb-2026

    Judgment

    Judge, First Labour Court

  8. 30-Dec-2025

    Argument

    I/c Judge

  9. 09-Dec-2025

    Argument

    I/c Judge

  10. 25-Nov-2025

    Argument

    I/c Judge

  11. 04-Nov-2025

    Respondents Evidence

    I/c Judge

  12. 23-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    I/c Judge

  13. 22-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    I/c Judge

  14. 21-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    I/c Judge

  15. 15-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Judge, Fourth Labour Court

  16. 04-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Judge, Fourth Labour Court

  17. 25-Feb-2025

    Reply

    Judge, Fourth Labour Court

  18. 28-Jan-2025

    Reply

    Judge, Fourth Labour Court

  19. 30-Nov-2024

    Reply

    Judge, Fourth Labour Court

  20. 05-Oct-2024

    Reply

    Judge, Fourth Labour Court

  21. 03-Aug-2024

    Reply

    Judge, Fourth Labour Court

  22. 06-Jul-2024

    Notice

    Judge, Fourth Labour Court

  23. 13-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 11-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 222/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The First Labour Court, Thane allowed the restoration application filed by the legal heirs (widow and daughter) of deceased worker Harikeshkumar Gaud. The original compensation claim under the Employees' Compensation Act, filed in 2011 following an employment injury, was dismissed in default in 2013 due to lack of advocate follow-up after the worker's death in August 2011. The court found good and sufficient cause for restoration, holding that the applicants should not suffer due to lack of communication with their advocate, and noting that the Employees' Compensation Act is social welfare legislation. The court restored the original application to its file and permitted the legal heirs to proceed with the matter on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case