Premium Transmission pvt Ltd vs Aurangabad Mazdoor Union Advocate - A.S. Kulkarni — 1/2020
Case under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Section 12. Status: High Court Time Bound.....R. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
REFERENCE IT
CNR: MHIC200000972020
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
152/2020
Filing Date
29-01-2020
Registration No
1/2020
Registration Date
29-01-2020
Court
Industrial Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, AURANGABAD.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Premium Transmission pvt Ltd
Adv. B.R.Kawre
Aurangabad Multi Services
Om sai Manpower services
Yashaswi Institute of Technology
Respondent(s)
Aurangabad Mazdoor Union Advocate - A.S. Kulkarni
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, AURANGABAD.
High Court Time Bound.....R
High Court Time Bound.....R
High Court Time Bound.....R
High Court Time Bound.....R
High Court Time Bound.....R
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | High Court Time Bound.....R |
| 23-03-2026 | High Court Time Bound.....R |
| 18-03-2026 | High Court Time Bound.....R |
| 17-03-2026 | High Court Time Bound.....R |
| 13-03-2026 | High Court Time Bound.....R |
Interim Orders
This is a proceeding transcript from the Industrial Tribunal, Aurangabad (Reference IT No. 1 of 2020) dated 23-03-2026, documenting the cross-examination of a witness in an employment dispute. The witness testified that work instructions came from the first party's production supervisor, not the contractor's supervisor, and that his work was integral to the company's main operations, supporting his demand for employment regularization. The case proceeded ex parte against First Party No. 4 with no cross-examination, and the witness was discharged after completion of examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a proceeding transcript from the Industrial Tribunal, Aurangabad (Reference IT No. 1 of 2020) dated 23-03-2026, documenting the cross-examination of a witness in an employment dispute. The witness testified that work instructions came from the first party's production supervisor, not the contractor's supervisor, and that his work was integral to the company's main operations, supporting his demand for employment regularization. The case proceeded ex parte against First Party No. 4 with no cross-examination, and the witness was discharged after completion of 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