Mr. Shahrukh Shahabuddin Khan vs M/s Amplinno India Pvt. LTd. Advocate - Vinayak Palande — 191/2021
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: MHIC010004752021
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
519/2021
Filing Date
06-09-2021
Registration No
191/2021
Registration Date
07-09-2021
Court
Industrial Court, Mumbai
Judge
3-Member
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mr. Shahrukh Shahabuddin Khan
Adv. A.G.Nagwekar
Mr. Kothala Sudhakar Rao
Respondent(s)
M/s Amplinno India Pvt. LTd. Advocate - Vinayak Palande
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
Case Summary The Industrial Court, Mumbai rejected Respondent No.2's application seeking dismissal of the unfair labor practices complaint on maintainability grounds. The court found that while the employer-employee relationship between the union members and Respondent No.2 is disputed, the issue requires recording of oral and documentary evidence and cannot be determined at the initial stage. The court held that Respondent No.2, as an alleged principal employer under the Contract Labour Act, may be liable for wage dues, making the complaint maintainable to proceed to the evidence stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Industrial Court, Mumbai rejected Respondent No.2's application seeking dismissal of the unfair labor practices complaint on maintainability grounds. The court found that while the employer-employee relationship between the union members and Respondent No.2 is disputed, the issue requires recording of oral and documentary evidence and cannot be determined at the initial stage. The court held that Respondent No.2, as an alleged principal employer under the Contract Labour Act, may be liable for wage dues, making the complaint maintainable to proceed to the evidence stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts