Vicky Pandurang Khadsare vs M/s. Suresh Indu Lasers Pvt Ltd Advocate - A.D. patwardhan — 261/2023
Case under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Section 2. Status: Evidence of Second Party. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
Reference IDA - Reference
CNR: MHLC120006782023
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
Filing Number
678/2023
Filing Date
07-11-2023
Registration No
261/2023
Registration Date
07-12-2023
Court
Labour Court, Pune.
Judge
1-Judge, 1st Labour Court, Pune.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vicky Pandurang Khadsare
Adv. D. B. Sharmale
Respondent(s)
M/s. Suresh Indu Lasers Pvt Ltd Advocate - A.D. patwardhan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judge, 1st Labour Court, Pune.
Evidence of Second Party
Cross of First Party
Evidence of Opponent
Evidence of Opponent
Evidence of Opponent
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence of Second Party |
| 10-02-2026 | Cross of First Party |
| 15-01-2026 | Evidence of Opponent |
| 26-11-2025 | Evidence of Opponent |
| 10-10-2025 | Evidence of Opponent |
Interim Orders
This document from the Second Labour Court, Pune (dated 06/03/2026) records the further chief examination and cross-examination of witness Pramod Manik Magar for the respondent company in case IDA No. 261/2023. The cross-examination reveals significant gaps in the respondent's case, including unsigned show cause notices, lack of documentary evidence of the applicant's alleged misconduct, missing production reports, and no gate entry records proving the applicant's absence—undermining the charges leveled against the applicant worker. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document from the Second Labour Court, Pune (dated 06/03/2026) records the further chief examination and cross-examination of witness Pramod Manik Magar for the respondent company in case IDA No. 261/2023. The cross-examination reveals significant gaps in the respondent's case, including unsigned show cause notices, lack of documentary evidence of the applicant's alleged misconduct, missing production reports, and no gate entry records proving the applicant's absence—undermining the charges leveled against the applicant worker. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts