Shaikh Naim Abdul Khalil vs The Registrar, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidhyapith, Akola Advocate - S.S.Rajderkar — 62/2022
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act Section 28,30(2). Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC300000702022
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
Filing Number
70/2022
Filing Date
25-02-2022
Registration No
62/2022
Registration Date
25-02-2022
Court
Industrial Court, Akola
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Akola.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shaikh Naim Abdul Khalil
Adv. P. R.Dharmadhikari
Respondent(s)
The Registrar, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidhyapith, Akola Advocate - S.S.Rajderkar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member, Industrial Court, Akola.
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 15-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 14-11-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 15-09-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 09-07-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
The Industrial Court's application under Section 30(2) of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act was partly allowed. The court directed the respondent employer to continue the complainant's employment as per work availability and seniority, while granting the employer liberty to take lawful action following due procedure if contingency arises. The court found the complainant had partly made out a case of unfair labour practice based on 5+ years of service with 240+ working days annually, but rejected blanket protection since employment was on daily wage basis contingent on work availability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Industrial Court's application under Section 30(2) of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act was partly allowed. The court directed the respondent employer to continue the complainant's employment as per work availability and seniority, while granting the employer liberty to take lawful action following due procedure if contingency arises. The court found the complainant had partly made out a case of unfair labour practice based on 5+ years of service with 240+ working days annually, but rejected blanket protection since employment was on daily wage basis contingent on work availability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts