Smt Rupali Rahul Saswade and other vs Prop. Dhananjay Bhosale for Dhananjay Metal Works Advocate - A P. Chougale — 9/2021
Case under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 Section 22. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 18th March 2026.
Appln.-WCA-C - C
CNR: MHLC090000442021
Filing Number
45/2021
Filing Date
03-02-2021
Registration No
9/2021
Registration Date
08-02-2021
Court
Labour Court, Kolhapur
Judge
2-Judge, Labour Court No. 2 Kolhapur.
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Smt Rupali Rahul Saswade and other
Adv. A. B. Jadhav
Kum Harshada Rahul Saswade
Kum Aradhya Rahul Saswade
Sou. Maya Laxman Saswade
Shri. Laxman Hindurao Saswade
Respondent(s)
Prop. Dhananjay Bhosale for Dhananjay Metal Works Advocate - A P. Chougale
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judge, Labour Court No. 2 Kolhapur.
Disposed
Judgment
Argument
Argument
Argument
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 13-03-2026 | Argument |
| 06-03-2026 | Argument |
| 02-03-2026 | Argument |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Second Labour Court, Kolhapur rejected the compensation application filed by the family of deceased Rahul Laxman Saswade under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The court found that applicants failed to prove an employer-employee relationship with the opponent (factory owner) or that death occurred during employment, citing insufficient medical evidence, lack of a missing complaint, and the opponent's denial of employment. Without establishing these foundational facts, the court held that compensation could not be awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Second Labour Court, Kolhapur rejected the compensation application filed by the family of deceased Rahul Laxman Saswade under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The court found that applicants failed to prove an employer-employee relationship with the opponent (factory owner) or that death occurred during employment, citing insufficient medical evidence, lack of a missing complaint, and the opponent's denial of employment. Without establishing these foundational facts, the court held that compensation could not be awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts