Maharshtra Kamgar Ekjut Union vs M/s Amplinno India Pvt. Ltd. Advocate - Vinayak Palande — 170/2021
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28. Status: Hearing on Interim Relief. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP1
CNR: MHIC010004212021
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
463/2021
Filing Date
11-08-2021
Registration No
170/2021
Registration Date
13-08-2021
Court
Industrial Court, Mumbai
Judge
3-Member
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Maharshtra Kamgar Ekjut Union
Adv. A.G.Nagwekar
Respondent(s)
M/s Amplinno India Pvt. Ltd. Advocate - Vinayak Palande
M/s Mahindra Finance LTd.
Adv. Manan Sanghai
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Member
Hearing on Interim Relief
Hearing on Interim Relief
Hearing on Interim Relief
Hearing on Interim Relief
Hearing on Interim Relief
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing on Interim Relief |
| 17-01-2026 | Hearing on Interim Relief |
| 19-11-2025 | Hearing on Interim Relief |
| 19-09-2025 | Hearing on Interim Relief |
| 11-08-2025 | Hearing on Interim Relief |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Industrial Court, Mumbai rejected Respondent No. 2's (M/s. Amplinno India Pvt. Ltd.) application seeking dismissal of the unfair labour practices complaint on grounds of lack of maintainability. The court held that whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the union members and Respondent No.2, and whether Respondent No.2 qualifies as a principal employer liable for wages under Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour Act, are mixed questions of law and fact requiring oral and documentary evidence, and cannot be determined at the initial stage. The application was rejected with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Industrial Court, Mumbai rejected Respondent No. 2's (M/s. Amplinno India Pvt. Ltd.) application seeking dismissal of the unfair labour practices complaint on grounds of lack of maintainability. The court held that whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the union members and Respondent No.2, and whether Respondent No.2 qualifies as a principal employer liable for wages under Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour Act, are mixed questions of law and fact requiring oral and documentary evidence, and cannot be determined at the initial stage. The application was rejected with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts