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
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
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.
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Issues |
| 18-02-2026 | Issues |
| 16-01-2026 | Issues |
| 15-01-2026 | Issues |
| 18-12-2025 | Issues |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts