Shri. Gopal Gulsundare vs The Joint Director Health Services Deepartment Advocate - U.S. Deshmukh — 13/2018
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC270000242018
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
Filing Number
24/2018
Filing Date
16-02-2018
Registration No
13/2018
Registration Date
16-02-2018
Court
Industrial Court, Amravati
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shri. Gopal Gulsundare
Adv. S.B. Thakare
Gavner Wankhade
Ramdas Gaikwad
Dashrath Surjusshe
Premdas Gaikwad
Manohar Wankhede
Ashok Gawande
Ganesh Barade
Bhaurao Ingale
Vishwas Wankhade
HImmat Khandare
Dhanraj Khadse
Arvind Solav
Gowardhan Gaderao
Bhaurao Bondule
Deepak Vidhate
Ramdas Gawai
Subhash Tantarpale
Gajanan Bhond
Devidas Mohane
Rajesh Mohane
Respondent(s)
The Joint Director Health Services Deepartment Advocate - U.S. Deshmukh
The Deputy Director, Akola
The District Malaria Officer
The Secretary, State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 07-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 25-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 12-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Amravati Bench) allowed the complainant Gopal Gomaji Gulsundare's application for permission to conduct further examination-in-chief on 15.04.2025. The court found that the initial examination lacked proper verification and the complainant was not given adequate opportunity to verify and prove the documents on record. Permission was granted as it would ensure a fair trial and aid in resolving the dispute without prejudicing the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Amravati Bench) allowed the complainant Gopal Gomaji Gulsundare's application for permission to conduct further examination-in-chief on 15.04.2025. The court found that the initial examination lacked proper verification and the complainant was not given adequate opportunity to verify and prove the documents on record. Permission was granted as it would ensure a fair trial and aid in resolving the dispute without prejudicing the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts