Shridhar Vinayak Deshmukh vs Registrar, Mah. Animal Fishries, Nagpur 2 Advocate - V. R. Malviya — 5000009/2012
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act Section 28. Status: ARGUMENT. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC300000252012
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
5000009/2012
Filing Date
24-01-2012
Registration No
5000009/2012
Registration Date
24-01-2012
Court
Industrial Court, Akola
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Akola.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shridhar Vinayak Deshmukh
Adv. A.V. Patkhedkar
Respondent(s)
Registrar, Mah. Animal Fishries, Nagpur 2 Advocate - V. R. Malviya
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member, Industrial Court, Akola.
ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
RESPONDENTS EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | ARGUMENT |
| 10-03-2026 | ARGUMENT |
| 06-03-2026 | ARGUMENT |
| 18-02-2026 | ARGUMENT |
| 30-01-2026 | RESPONDENTS EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
This document records the cross-examination of a witness/complainant in Industrial Court Complaint U.L.P.No.9/2012 dated 06.01.2026. The complainant, a Project Affected Candidate, testified that he started working with the Respondent University in 2002 and made multiple written representations (1997-98, 2002, 2007, 2009) seeking service regularization due to state acquisition of his father's agricultural land. The cross-examination concluded with the complainant denying allegations that his affidavit contents were false or that employer-employee relationship ceased after service termination, while objections regarding scope of questioning were reserved for final adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document records the cross-examination of a witness/complainant in Industrial Court Complaint U.L.P.No.9/2012 dated 06.01.2026. The complainant, a Project Affected Candidate, testified that he started working with the Respondent University in 2002 and made multiple written representations (1997-98, 2002, 2007, 2009) seeking service regularization due to state acquisition of his father's agricultural land. The cross-examination concluded with the complainant denying allegations that his affidavit contents were false or that employer-employee relationship ceased after service termination, while objections regarding scope of questioning were reserved for final adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts