Mukund khurd vs Srhi Mahakali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Advocate - Mutalik Sandeep Shashikant — 70/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28. Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100001292019
Next Hearing
08th April 2026
Filing Number
129/2019
Filing Date
20-08-2019
Registration No
70/2019
Registration Date
20-08-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mukund khurd
Adv. Yadav Dhairyasheel Shamarao
Respondent(s)
Srhi 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
Case Summary Court: Member Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Sangli Case: Complaint (ULP) No. 70 of 2019 Date: 22nd August 2022 Outcome: The application for document production was partly allowed. The Industrial Court directed the respondent sugar factory to produce wage registers and bonus records pertaining to the complainant (for 2004-2010 and 2009-2010 respectively), but rejected the demand for share capital deduction records as it falls outside labor law jurisdiction. The Court found the respondent's claim of record unavailability unconvincing and restricted document demands to the complainant alone, not all workers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Court: Member Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Sangli Case: Complaint (ULP) No. 70 of 2019 Date: 22nd August 2022 Outcome: The application for document production was partly allowed. The Industrial Court directed the respondent sugar factory to produce wage registers and bonus records pertaining to the complainant (for 2004-2010 and 2009-2010 respectively), but rejected the demand for share capital deduction records as it falls outside labor law jurisdiction. The Court found the respondent's claim of record unavailability unconvincing and restricted document demands to the complainant alone, not all workers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts