Giridhar Santaram Pawar vs chairman and Managing Director, R.R.B. Energy Ltd. Beed and Other 2 Advocate - S.V.Dankh — 1700509/2015
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 Section 28,30. Status: Cross. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.
COMPLAINT ULP
CNR: MHIC200006202015
Next Hearing
16th April 2026
Filing Number
1701362/2015
Filing Date
15-12-2015
Registration No
1700509/2015
Registration Date
15-12-2015
Court
Industrial Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, AURANGABAD.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Giridhar Santaram Pawar
Adv. P.M.Shinde
Respondent(s)
chairman and Managing Director, R.R.B. Energy Ltd. Beed and Other 2 Advocate - S.V.Dankh
Junior Engineer R R B Energy Ltd. Beed
General Manager, Personal and Administratioin R.R.B Energy Ltd.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, AURANGABAD.
Cross
Cross
Cross
Cross
Cross
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Cross |
| 06-03-2026 | Cross |
| 17-02-2026 | Cross |
| 09-02-2026 | Cross |
| 31-01-2026 | Cross |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Industrial Court at Aurangabad allowed the respondent's application to amend its written statement, despite the case being at the evidence stage since issues were framed in 2020. The court imposed costs of Rs. 3,000 on the respondent, directing payment to the complainant within 15 days along with submission of the amended written statement. The court found the amendment necessary for proper adjudication despite the delay, though noted the respondent's belated filing of the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Industrial Court at Aurangabad allowed the respondent's application to amend its written statement, despite the case being at the evidence stage since issues were framed in 2020. The court imposed costs of Rs. 3,000 on the respondent, directing payment to the complainant within 15 days along with submission of the amended written statement. The court found the amendment necessary for proper adjudication despite the delay, though noted the respondent's belated filing of the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts