Nazeem Ibrahim Sayed and another vs M/s. Indus Towers Ltd. Through its Manager Advocate - THOLE YTIN INDARCHANDRA — 1/2022
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33A. Status: Respondents Evidence. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
Complaint (IT)
CNR: MHLC200001772022
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
Filing Number
256/2022
Filing Date
18-05-2022
Registration No
1/2022
Registration Date
18-05-2022
Court
Labour Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nazeem Ibrahim Sayed and another
Adv. KAWARE BAPUSASAHEB RGHUNATH
Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmachari Sanghatna (Through its President)
Adv. THOLE YTIN INDARCHANDRA
Respondent(s)
M/s. Indus Towers Ltd. Through its Manager Advocate - THOLE YTIN INDARCHANDRA
M/s. Teamlease Services Pvt. Ltd. Through its Manager
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.
Respondents Evidence
Respondents Evidence
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Respondents Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Respondents Evidence |
| 05-03-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 16-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 04-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Labour Court (Industrial Case No. 1/2022) dismissed the petition. The court found that the respondent company validly terminated the petitioner's employment under the contract agreement dated 2012, and that the petitioner was contractual labor without permanent status. The court ruled that since the termination occurred within the contractual period and followed proper procedures, no relief was granted to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Labour Court (Industrial Case No. 1/2022) dismissed the petition. The court found that the respondent company validly terminated the petitioner's employment under the contract agreement dated 2012, and that the petitioner was contractual labor without permanent status. The court ruled that since the termination occurred within the contractual period and followed proper procedures, no relief was granted to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts