Apsar Tamboli vs Shri Mahakali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant — 69/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28. Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100001272019
Next Hearing
08th April 2026
Filing Number
127/2019
Filing Date
14-08-2019
Registration No
69/2019
Registration Date
14-08-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Apsar Tamboli
Adv. Yadav Dhairyasheel Shamarao
Respondent(s)
Shri Mahakali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 06-03-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 06-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 16-01-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 20-12-2025 | Cross Examination |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Member Industrial Court, Sangli, partly allowed the application filed by Shri Apsar Karim Tamboli in his unfair labor practice complaint against Shree Mahankali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. The court directed the respondent sugar factory to produce wage register documents pertaining to the complainant for the period 2004-2008, rejecting the respondent's claim that records were unavailable due to bank possession. However, the demand for share capital deduction records was rejected as it pertains to cooperative society matters outside the court's scope. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Member Industrial Court, Sangli, partly allowed the application filed by Shri Apsar Karim Tamboli in his unfair labor practice complaint against Shree Mahankali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. The court directed the respondent sugar factory to produce wage register documents pertaining to the complainant for the period 2004-2008, rejecting the respondent's claim that records were unavailable due to bank possession. However, the demand for share capital deduction records was rejected as it pertains to cooperative society matters outside the court's scope. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts