Azmat Ali Shaikh vs Hotel Grand Hyatt Mumbai Advocate - Puri/Paresh-1/Kharawal-4,5, — 28/2022

Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 44. Status: Argument. Next hearing: 30th March 2026.

Argument Next hearing 30-Mar-2026 this date has passed

Revn. Appln. ULP

CNR: MHIC010009852022

Filing Number

1024/2022

Filing Date

10-Jun-2022

Registration No

28/2022

Registration Date

17-Jun-2022

Court

Industrial Court, Mumbai

Judge

6-Member

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 44

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Azmat Ali Shaikh

    Adv. J N Tiwari

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Hotel Grand Hyatt Mumbai Advocate - Puri/Paresh-1/Kharawal-4,5,

  2. 2.Juniper Hotel Pvt.LTd.

    Adv. S Kharawal-4,5,

  3. 3.Arun Kumar Saraf

  4. 4.Fortpoint LEasing Solutions

    Adv. Sunil Kharawl

  5. 5.Fort Point automotive Pvt.Ltd.

    Adv. Sunil Kharawl

  6. 6.Sandip Kumar Bafna

    Adv. Sunil Kharawl

  7. 7.Ramkumar Nadar

Case History

  1. 30-Mar-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Argument

    Member

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Argument

    Member

  4. 23-Feb-2026

    Argument

    Member

  5. 30-Jan-2026

    Order below Exh---View PDF

    The Industrial Court rejected the application filed by Opponents 4, 5, and 6 seeking to delete Opponent No. 7 from the revision proceedings. The court held that since Opponent No. 7 was made a party in the original Labour Court proceedings and may serve as a material witness, his deletion cannot be considered at this stage. Application Exhibit CA-3 was accordingly rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 30-Jan-2026

    Argument

    Member

  7. 06-Jan-2026

    Hearing below Exh._______

    Member

  8. 10-Dec-2025

    Say

    Member

  9. 07-Nov-2025

    Say

    Member

  10. 08-Sep-2025

    Say

    Member

  11. 25-Jul-2025

    Say

    Member

  12. 13-Jun-2025

    Say

    I.c.member

  13. 28-Mar-2025

    Say

    Member

  14. 21-Feb-2025

    Say

    Member

  15. 27-Jan-2025

    Say

    Member

  16. 20-Dec-2024

    Say

    Member

  17. 22-Nov-2024

    Say

    Member

  18. 18-Oct-2024

    Say

    Member

  19. 27-Sep-2024

    Say

    Member

  20. 30-Aug-2024

    Say

    Member

  21. 02-Aug-2024

    Say

    Member

  22. 05-Jul-2024

    Say

    Member

  23. 12-Jun-2024

    Say

    Member

  24. 16-Apr-2024

    Say

    Member

  25. 13-Mar-2024

    Say

    Member

  26. 13-Feb-2024

    Say

    Member

  27. 22-Jan-2024

    Say

    Member

  28. 22-Dec-2023

    Say

    Member

  29. 24-Nov-2023

    Say

    Member

  30. 13-Oct-2023

    Say

    Member

  31. 22-Sep-2023

    Say

    Member

  32. 25-Aug-2023

    Hearing below Exh._______

    Member

  33. 04-Aug-2023

    Hearing below Exh._______

    Member

  34. 07-Jul-2023

    Say

    Member

  35. 23-Jun-2023

    Apparance

    Member

  36. 19-Apr-2023

    Apparance

    Member

  37. 24-Mar-2023

    Apparance

    Member

  38. 24-Feb-2023

    Apparance

    Member

  39. 27-Jan-2023

    Apparance

    Member

  40. 23-Dec-2022

    Apparance

    Member

  41. 18-Nov-2022

    Apparance

    Member

  42. 14-Oct-2022

    Apparance

    Member

  43. 30-Sep-2022

    Apparance

    Member

  44. 26-Aug-2022

    Apparance

    Member

  45. 29-Jul-2022

    Service Report

    Member

  46. 08-Jul-2022

    Say

    Member

  47. 17-Jun-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  48. 10-Jun-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 28/2022

casestatus.in Summary

The Industrial Court rejected the application filed by Opponents 4, 5, and 6 seeking to delete Opponent No. 7 from the revision proceedings. The court held that since Opponent No. 7 was made a party in the original Labour Court proceedings and may serve as a material witness, his deletion cannot be considered at this stage. Application Exhibit CA-3 was accordingly rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case