V.Arul Doss, S/o.Vijendiran vs The Management JBM Auto Limited Advocate - K.R.Hariharan — 23/2025
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33C(2). Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
CP - Claim Petition
CNR: TNKP180000462025
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
46/2025
Filing Date
03-04-2025
Registration No
23/2025
Registration Date
16-06-2025
Court
Labour Court, Kancheepuram
Judge
1-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kancheepuram
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
V.Arul Doss, S/o.Vijendiran
Adv. J.Prathaban
Respondent(s)
The Management JBM Auto Limited Advocate - K.R.Hariharan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kancheepuram
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-05-2026 | Part Heard |
| 27-04-2026 | Part Heard |
| 07-04-2026 | Part Heard |
| 12-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 25-02-2026 | Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CP.No. 23/2025 V. Arul Doss v. JBM Auto Limited On 15.05.2026, the Labour Court, Kancheepuram recorded the witness statement (PW1) of petitioner V. Arul Doss regarding his claims against JBM Auto Limited. Doss testified about his employment history, alleging wrongful termination and seeking back wages (₹19,91,245/-), arrears, bonuses, and other benefits for the period 2020-2024. He referenced a prior case (OP.33/2021) and claimed insufficient income after dismissal. The court found no procedural defects to bar the petition and adjourned the matter for further inquiry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CP.No. 23/2025 V. Arul Doss v. JBM Auto Limited On 15.05.2026, the Labour Court, Kancheepuram recorded the witness statement (PW1) of petitioner V. Arul Doss regarding his claims against JBM Auto Limited. Doss testified about his employment history, alleging wrongful termination and seeking back wages (₹19,91,245/-), arrears, bonuses, and other benefits for the period 2020-2024. He referenced a prior case (OP.33/2021) and claimed insufficient income after dismissal. The court found no procedural defects to bar the petition and adjourned the matter for further inquiry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts