Nitin Mohan Powar vs Mahalaxmi Enterprises Advocate - D. S. Desai — 32/2022
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28. Status: Argument. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC090001002022
Next Hearing
07th April 2026
Filing Number
104/2022
Filing Date
26-04-2022
Registration No
32/2022
Registration Date
27-04-2022
Court
Industrial Court, Kolhapur
Judge
2-Member, Industrial Court No. 2
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nitin Mohan Powar
Adv. V. M. Kuigade
Respondent(s)
Mahalaxmi Enterprises Advocate - D. S. Desai
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Member, Industrial Court No. 2
Argument
Evidence of Complianant
Evidence of Complianant
Evidence of Complianant
Evidence of Complianant
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Argument |
| 11-02-2026 | Evidence of Complianant |
| 29-01-2026 | Evidence of Complianant |
| 16-01-2026 | Evidence of Complianant |
| 23-12-2025 | Evidence of Complianant |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Industrial Court at Kolhapur found that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and rejected the respondent's jurisdictional challenge. The court held that although the complainant's unpaid salary, bonus, and leave encashment claims (October 2019–December 2020) relate to work performed at Pune, the court can still exercise jurisdiction because: (1) the respondent's head office is located in Kolhapur, (2) the complainant is a permanent Kolhapur resident, and (3) the respondent's reply letter dated 15/11/2021 was issued from Kolhapur, creating multiple causes of action within Kolhapur's jurisdiction. The case proceeds to the evidence stage on remaining substantive issues. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Industrial Court at Kolhapur found that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and rejected the respondent's jurisdictional challenge. The court held that although the complainant's unpaid salary, bonus, and leave encashment claims (October 2019–December 2020) relate to work performed at Pune, the court can still exercise jurisdiction because: (1) the respondent's head office is located in Kolhapur, (2) the complainant is a permanent Kolhapur resident, and (3) the respondent's reply letter dated 15/11/2021 was issued from Kolhapur, creating multiple causes of action within Kolhapur's jurisdiction. The case proceeds to the evidence stage on remaining substantive issues. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts