Madhav narsing Suryawanshi vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Advocate - S B Mene — 157/2018
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 Section 28. Status: Argument. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.
COMPLAINT ULP
CNR: MHIC200001432018
Next Hearing
08th April 2026
Filing Number
598/2018
Filing Date
01-10-2018
Registration No
157/2018
Registration Date
01-10-2018
Court
Industrial Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, AURANGABAD.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Madhav narsing Suryawanshi
Adv. B.R.Kawre
Respondent(s)
City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Advocate - S B Mene
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, AURANGABAD.
Argument
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Cross
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Argument |
| 06-02-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 23-12-2025 | Respondent Evidence |
| 03-12-2025 | Respondent Evidence |
| 15-11-2025 | Cross |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a procedural record from Industrial Court, Aurangabad (Complaint ULP No. 157/2018) documenting the cross-examination of the complainant regarding their employment status and entitlement to permanent position and benefits. The witness testified that they completed 240 continuous days annually, the respondent is an industrial establishment, and they are entitled to permanency despite six-monthly appointment orders. The witness was discharged after cross-examination with no re-examination on 03-12-2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a procedural record from Industrial Court, Aurangabad (Complaint ULP No. 157/2018) documenting the cross-examination of the complainant regarding their employment status and entitlement to permanent position and benefits. The witness testified that they completed 240 continuous days annually, the respondent is an industrial establishment, and they are entitled to permanency despite six-monthly appointment orders. The witness was discharged after cross-examination with no re-examination on 03-12-2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts