Dilbaug Pyarelal Ridlawn vs The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Advocate - MULE RAJARAM BALKRISHNA — 19/2020
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33C2. Status: Order. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Appln IDA - Application
CNR: MHLC200001582020
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
201/2020
Filing Date
21-03-2020
Registration No
19/2020
Registration Date
06-04-2020
Court
Labour Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dilbaug Pyarelal Ridlawn
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 Application IDA No. 19/2020 | Labour Court No. 1, Aurangabad The application filed by Dilbaug Pyarelal Ridlawn seeking wage difference of Rs. 1,39,150 against the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that since the employer-employee relationship itself is a disputed fact and there is no prior adjudication establishing this relationship, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain wage difference claims under Section 33-C(2). The applicant must first initiate appropriate proceedings by way of industrial dispute reference to establish his employment status before pursuing wage claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Application IDA No. 19/2020 | Labour Court No. 1, Aurangabad The application filed by Dilbaug Pyarelal Ridlawn seeking wage difference of Rs. 1,39,150 against the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that since the employer-employee relationship itself is a disputed fact and there is no prior adjudication establishing this relationship, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain wage difference claims under Section 33-C(2). The applicant must first initiate appropriate proceedings by way of industrial dispute reference to establish his employment status before pursuing wage claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts