Nilesh Anandrao Gujar and other 12 vs Sports and Youth Services and others Advocate - Tukdeo R V — 11/2016
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28. Status: Respondent Evidence. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC110000362016
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
11/2016
Filing Date
10-03-2016
Registration No
11/2016
Registration Date
11-03-2016
Court
Industrial Court, Satara
Judge
1-MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT SATARA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nilesh Anandrao Gujar and other 12
Adv. Todkar D.P
Satish Sadashiv Shinde
Adv. Todkar D.P
Respondent(s)
Sports and Youth Services and others Advocate - Tukdeo R V
District Sports Office Satara
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT SATARA
Respondent Evidence
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 20-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 13-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 30-01-2026 | Cross Examination |
Interim Orders
This is a cross-examination transcript from Industrial Court proceedings (Complaint ULP No. 11/2016) held on 13.02.2026 in Satara. The document records witness testimony from Nitin Madhavrao Taralkar regarding employment disputes at a sports complex (Respondent No.4), with the witness confirming complainants worked continuously but denying formal appointment documentation, employee benefits, or written terms of employment. The case was adjourned to the next date upon request of the complainant's advocate to continue cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a cross-examination transcript from Industrial Court proceedings (Complaint ULP No. 11/2016) held on 13.02.2026 in Satara. The document records witness testimony from Nitin Madhavrao Taralkar regarding employment disputes at a sports complex (Respondent No.4), with the witness confirming complainants worked continuously but denying formal appointment documentation, employee benefits, or written terms of employment. The case was adjourned to the next date upon request of the complainant's advocate to continue cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts