Shashikant Sonaji Supekar vs MORGANITE CRUCIBLE (INDIA) LIMITED Through its Managing Direcgtor Advocate - DANKH SACHIN VASANTRAO — 15/2020

Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28(1)and30(2). Status: Say. Next hearing: 02nd April 2026.

Comp ULP - Complaint

CNR: MHLC200001222020

Say

Next Hearing

02nd April 2026

Filing Number

163/2020

Filing Date

25-02-2020

Registration No

15/2020

Registration Date

26-02-2020

Court

Labour Court, Aurangabad

Judge

1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28(1)and30(2)

Petitioner(s)

Shashikant Sonaji Supekar

Adv. TAKSAL ABHAY MANOHAR

Respondent(s)

MORGANITE CRUCIBLE (INDIA) LIMITED Through its Managing Direcgtor Advocate - DANKH SACHIN VASANTRAO

Hearing History

Judge: 1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.

18-03-2026

Say

06-03-2026

Say

20-02-2026

Say

09-02-2026

Say

07-02-2026

Say

Interim Orders

11-08-2023
Copy of Order Below Exhibit

Summary: The Labour Court-1 at Aurangabad partly allowed the respondent's application filed in an unfair labour practice complaint. While the respondent contended that the complainant (an Assistant Manager) was not a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the court rejected treating this as a preliminary issue. Instead, the court directed that the "workman" status issue be framed as a substantive issue and decided along with all other issues on the basis of evidence during the main proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Labour Court-1 at Aurangabad partly allowed the respondent's application filed in an unfair labour practice complaint. While the respondent contended that the complainant (an Assistant Manager) was not a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the court rejected treating this as a preliminary issue. Instead, the court directed that the "workman" status issue be framed as a substantive issue and decided along with all other issues on the basis of evidence during the main proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Labour Court, Aurangabad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case