Tata Ficosa Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd vs Employees State Insurance Corporation Advocate - M. M. Bhalerao — 5000034/2015
Case under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 Section 75. Status: Summons. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.
Application ESI - Applicaton ESI
CNR: MHIC120005632015
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
Filing Number
5000599/2015
Filing Date
10-12-2015
Registration No
5000034/2015
Registration Date
10-12-2015
Court
Industrial Court, Pune
Judge
1-MEMBER, 1st INDUSTRIAL COURT, PUNE.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Tata Ficosa Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd
Adv. A. R. Joshi
Respondent(s)
Employees State Insurance Corporation Advocate - M. M. Bhalerao
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MEMBER, 1st INDUSTRIAL COURT, PUNE.
Summons
Summons
Summons
Summons
Steps
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Summons |
| 10-02-2026 | Summons |
| 13-01-2026 | Summons |
| 24-12-2025 | Summons |
| 16-12-2025 | Steps |
Interim Orders
This document is a transcript of witness examination in an ESI (Employees' State Insurance) Application No.34/2015 before the Insurance Court, Pune, dated 08.1.2024. During cross-examination, the applicant's HR representative admitted to lacking documentary evidence to support claims that listed parties were independent vendors, that contractors employed sufficient staff for ESI exemption, and that the company merely purchased finished goods rather than employing workers. The witness could not substantiate the applicant's defense against an ESI order dated 22.12.2009 issued under Section 45A of the ESI Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document is a transcript of witness examination in an ESI (Employees' State Insurance) Application No.34/2015 before the Insurance Court, Pune, dated 08.1.2024. During cross-examination, the applicant's HR representative admitted to lacking documentary evidence to support claims that listed parties were independent vendors, that contractors employed sufficient staff for ESI exemption, and that the company merely purchased finished goods rather than employing workers. The witness could not substantiate the applicant's defense against an ESI order dated 22.12.2009 issued under Section 45A of the ESI Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts