Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Through Its Authorized Signatory Satender Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Dharmendra Dodia Phali – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 3495 to 3614 Of 2026 Decided On : 16-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court proceedings and interim relief provided (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. rejection of applications under industrial disputes act (Para 2) |
| 3. reference to apex court decision in support (Para 3) |
ORDER :
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Kaustubh Shrivastav on behalf of Nanavati Associates for the petitioner.
2. The dispute raised in the present petitions is with regard to the fact that the petitioner’s Applications for the purpose of holding inquiry under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came to be rejected by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
3. The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Workmen Of The Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd. vs. The Motipur Sugar Factory , reported in 1965 SCC OnLine SC 77.
4. In view of above, issue NOTICE, returnable on 30.03.2026.
5. Till then, there shall be an ad-interim relief in terms of para-10(C) till the next date of hearing.
Direct service is permitted today.
The rejection of inquiry applications under the Industrial Disputes Act can be challenged, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the independence of the proceedings under Section 10, 10(4-A), and 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the inapplicability of the principl....
Industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act can be raised at any time; delay does not bar adjudication if the dispute remains valid and justiciable.
Point of Law- Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time ....
A petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be maintained without prior adjudication or agreement.
The existence of an industrial dispute at the time of Reference is essential, and delay in raising the dispute does not extinguish it.
A workman must demonstrate that an industrial dispute remains alive despite delays; failure to do so renders the dispute stale and unenforceable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
