Nishikant Babaso Bhojane vs Shankarrao Pujari Nutan nagari Sah bank ltd Advocate - N. V. Jangam — 22/2019
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28. Status: Argument. Next hearing: 02nd April 2026.
Comp. ULP - Complaint
CNR: MHLC090001012019
Next Hearing
02nd April 2026
Filing Number
112/2019
Filing Date
22-02-2019
Registration No
22/2019
Registration Date
08-03-2019
Court
Labour Court, Kolhapur
Judge
1-Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nishikant Babaso Bhojane
Adv. T.N. Jamdade
Respondent(s)
Shankarrao Pujari Nutan nagari Sah bank ltd Advocate - N. V. Jangam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.
Argument
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Argument |
| 20-02-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 06-02-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 16-01-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 19-12-2025 | Respondent Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary Case: U.L.P. (Unfair Labour Practice) No. 22/2019 before the Labour Court, Kolhapur Outcome: The complaint was dismissed. The court found that the complainant (an employee of a cooperative bank) failed to substantiate his claims of unfair labour practice. During cross-examination, the complainant admitted that his own testimony and documentary evidence contained false and incorrect statements, thereby undermining his credibility. The court concluded that cross-examination was not required from the respondents (bank officials) as the complainant's case lacked merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary Case: U.L.P. (Unfair Labour Practice) No. 22/2019 before the Labour Court, Kolhapur Outcome: The complaint was dismissed. The court found that the complainant (an employee of a cooperative bank) failed to substantiate his claims of unfair labour practice. During cross-examination, the complainant admitted that his own testimony and documentary evidence contained false and incorrect statements, thereby undermining his credibility. The court concluded that cross-examination was not required from the respondents (bank officials) as the complainant's case lacked merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts