Shri Aslam Yusnus Mujawar and ors vs Aswad J patil and ors — 5/2023
Case under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 Section 4. Status: Respondents Evidence. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
Appln.WCA.B - B
CNR: MHLC060000832023
Next Hearing
07th April 2026
Filing Number
83/2023
Filing Date
07-08-2023
Registration No
5/2023
Registration Date
07-08-2023
Court
Labour Court, Mahad, Dist- Raigad
Judge
1-Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shri Aslam Yusnus Mujawar and ors
Adv. Deepali Sutar
Hasina Aslam Mujawar
Adv. Deepali Sutar
Respondent(s)
Aswad J patil and ors
Ifco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judge
Respondents Evidence
Respondents Evidence
Respondents Evidence
Respondents Evidence
Cross Examination
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Respondents Evidence |
| 10-03-2026 | Respondents Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Respondents Evidence |
| 27-02-2026 | Respondents Evidence |
| 20-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Labor Court, Raigad-Alibaug dismissed the worker's compensation claim completely (उलटतपास पूर्ण). The court found that the insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident, but rejected the plaintiff's evidence regarding the employee's monthly salary of ₹12,000 and employment terms, noting contradictions and finding the testimony unreliable. The insurance company (Defendant 2) was held not liable for compensation as the employment relationship and wage claims were not adequately established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Labor Court, Raigad-Alibaug dismissed the worker's compensation claim completely (उलटतपास पूर्ण). The court found that the insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident, but rejected the plaintiff's evidence regarding the employee's monthly salary of ₹12,000 and employment terms, noting contradictions and finding the testimony unreliable. The insurance company (Defendant 2) was held not liable for compensation as the employment relationship and wage claims were not adequately established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts