Satyanarayan Bharat Gurkhude vs The Divisional Controller Advocate - SHAIKH ABDUL KAYUM — 35/2025

Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28AND30. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 27th April 2026.

Comp ULP - Complaint

CNR: MHLC200002092025

Issues

Next Hearing

27th April 2026

e-Filing Number

15-07-2025

Filing Number

362/2025

Filing Date

15-07-2025

Registration No

35/2025

Registration Date

15-07-2025

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 28AND30

Petitioner(s)

Satyanarayan Bharat Gurkhude

Adv. SURWASE ANIL NIVRATTIRAO

Respondent(s)

The Divisional Controller Advocate - SHAIKH ABDUL KAYUM

The Assistant Mechanical Engineer

Hearing History

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

06-03-2026

Issues

18-02-2026

Issues

16-01-2026

Issues

15-01-2026

Issues

18-12-2025

Issues

Interim Orders

31-10-2025
Copy of Order Below Exhibit

Case Summary The Labour Court-1 at Aurangabad partly allowed the interim relief application filed by Satyanarayan Bharat Gurkhude against MSRTC and others. The court stayed the operation and execution of the dismissal show-cause notice dated 08/07/2025, directing the respondent not to dismiss the complainant during the pendency of the complaint. The judge found that the respondent prima facie committed unfair labor practice by proposing dismissal for absenteeism without establishing willfulness, and that the absence was justified due to the complainant's medical treatment for a spine injury. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Labour Court-1 at Aurangabad partly allowed the interim relief application filed by Satyanarayan Bharat Gurkhude against MSRTC and others. The court stayed the operation and execution of the dismissal show-cause notice dated 08/07/2025, directing the respondent not to dismiss the complainant during the pendency of the complaint. The judge found that the respondent prima facie committed unfair labor practice by proposing dismissal for absenteeism without establishing willfulness, and that the absence was justified due to the complainant's medical treatment for a spine injury. 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