Santosh Sukhdev Borde vs The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Advocate - MULE RAJARAM BALKRISHNA — 18/2020
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33C2. Status: Order. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Appln IDA - Application
CNR: MHLC200001572020
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
200/2020
Filing Date
21-03-2020
Registration No
18/2020
Registration Date
06-04-2020
Court
Labour Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Santosh Sukhdev Borde
Adv. WAIKOS AMIT BABARAO
Respondent(s)
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Advocate - MULE RAJARAM BALKRISHNA
Maharana Agency Security and Labour Supplier Services Aurangabad
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.
Order
Order
Order
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Order |
| 18-02-2026 | Order |
| 12-02-2026 | Order |
| 17-01-2026 | Order |
| 06-01-2026 | Order |
Interim Orders
Case Summary The Labour Court dismissed an application filed by Santosh Sukhdev Borde under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad, finding it not maintainable. The court held that since the employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the corporation was a disputed fact with no prior adjudication, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to determine wage differences—which requires pre-existing benefits to be established first. The applicant was directed to pursue appropriate proceedings through industrial dispute reference to establish his employment status before seeking wage computation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Labour Court dismissed an application filed by Santosh Sukhdev Borde under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad, finding it not maintainable. The court held that since the employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the corporation was a disputed fact with no prior adjudication, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to determine wage differences—which requires pre-existing benefits to be established first. The applicant was directed to pursue appropriate proceedings through industrial dispute reference to establish his employment status before seeking wage computation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts