Pramod Devidas Lad vs M/s. Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 1 Advocate - Vijay Mehta — 13/2024
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act Section 28. Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
Comp.ULP - Complaint
CNR: MHLC060000792024
Filing Number
79/2024
Filing Date
05-Dec-2024
Registration No
13/2024
Registration Date
05-Dec-2024
Court
Labour Court, Mahad, Dist- Raigad
Judge
1-Judge
Last updated 26-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Pramod Devidas Lad
Adv. Adv. Shruti M. Choudhari
Respondent(s)
-
1.M/s. Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 1 Advocate - Vijay Mehta
-
2.Sanjay Gahlawat, Deupty General Manager
Case History
-
10-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Cross Examination
Judge
-
17-Feb-2026
Cross Examination
Judge
-
16-Jan-2026
Cross Examination
Judge
-
12-Dec-2025
Cross Examination
Judge
-
14-Nov-2025
Cross Examination
Judge
-
31-Oct-2025
order below ExhView PDF
Summary: The Labour Court at Alibag allowed the respondents' application to frame a preliminary issue regarding whether the complainant qualifies as a "workman" under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The court found that the parties held contradictory positions—the complainant claimed he performed manual and skilled work, while the respondents contended he held a managerial position—making this a foundational issue requiring determination before proceeding further. Both parties will now present evidence on this preliminary issue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
31-Oct-2025
Cross Examination
Judge
-
26-Sep-2025
Hearing Below Exh._____
Judge
-
25-Aug-2025
Say
Judge
-
02-Aug-2025
Say
Judge
-
11-Jul-2025
Evidence
Judge
-
13-Jun-2025
Evidence
Judge
-
25-Apr-2025
Issues
Judge
-
20-Mar-2025
Issues
Judge
-
21-Jan-2025
Hearing on Interim Relief
Judge
-
19-Dec-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Dec-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 13/2024
Summary: The Labour Court at Alibag allowed the respondents' application to frame a preliminary issue regarding whether the complainant qualifies as a "workman" under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The court found that the parties held contradictory positions—the complainant claimed he performed manual and skilled work, while the respondents contended he held a managerial position—making this a foundational issue requiring determination before proceeding further. Both parties will now present evidence on this preliminary issue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts