M/S Dhingar Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Shri Shrinivas Yallapa Kanige Advocate - Smita Paratkar — 59/2023

Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 15th May 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 15-May-2026 this date has passed

Ref IDA - Reference

CNR: MHLC040005602023

Filing Number

560/2023

Filing Date

17-Jul-2023

Registration No

59/2023

Registration Date

27-Jul-2023

Court

Labour Court,Thane

Judge

3-Judge, Third Labour Court

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S Dhingar Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd.

    Adv. Vinod Kumar Singh

  2. 2.Shr Shantilal Dhingarmal Jain

  3. 3.Ashokkumar Dhigalmal Jain

  4. 4.Shri Sukanlal Dhingarmal Jain

  5. 5.Shri Basandevi Shantilal Jain

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shri Shrinivas Yallapa Kanige Advocate - Smita Paratkar

Case History

  1. 15-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  3. 30-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  4. 17-Dec-2025

    Compliance

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  5. 17-Nov-2025

    Compliance

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  6. 27-Oct-2025

    Compliance

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  7. 29-Sep-2025

    Compliance

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  8. 25-Aug-2025

    Compliance

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  9. 11-Aug-2025

    Order below ExhView PDF

    Summary: The Third Labour Court at Thane allowed the application filed by First Party No. 5 to delete her name from the dispute. The court found that First Party No. 5 has no employer-employee relationship with the Second Party (who sought reinstatement as a warper) and was impleaded merely because the company's electricity connection is in her name, making her not a necessary party to the reference. The court ordered her name be deleted from the array of parties, allowing the case to proceed on merit without her involvement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  10. 11-Aug-2025

    Compliance

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  11. 11-Jul-2025

    Hearing below Exh.

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  12. 18-Jun-2025

    Hearing below Exh.

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  13. 28-Apr-2025

    Hearing below Exh.

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  14. 09-Apr-2025

    Hearing below Exh.

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  15. 28-Mar-2025

    Hearing below Exh.

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  16. 03-Mar-2025

    Hearing below Exh.

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  17. 20-Jan-2025

    Hearing below Exh.

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  18. 06-Jan-2025

    Hearing below Exh.

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  19. 02-Dec-2024

    Hearing below Exh.

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  20. 06-Nov-2024

    Say

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  21. 07-Oct-2024

    Say

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  22. 02-Sep-2024

    Say

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  23. 14-Aug-2024

    Written Statement

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  24. 05-Jul-2024

    Written Statement

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  25. 07-Jun-2024

    Appearance

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  26. 03-May-2024

    Report

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  27. 10-Apr-2024

    Report

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  28. 13-Mar-2024

    Report

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  29. 09-Feb-2024

    Report

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  30. 22-Dec-2023

    Notice

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  31. 24-Nov-2023

    Written Statement

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  32. 13-Oct-2023

    Written Statement

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  33. 11-Sep-2023

    Report

    Judge, Third Labour Court

  34. 31-Jul-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  35. 17-Jul-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 59/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Third Labour Court at Thane allowed the application filed by First Party No. 5 to delete her name from the dispute. The court found that First Party No. 5 has no employer-employee relationship with the Second Party (who sought reinstatement as a warper) and was impleaded merely because the company's electricity connection is in her name, making her not a necessary party to the reference. The court ordered her name be deleted from the array of parties, allowing the case to proceed on merit without her involvement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case