Narayan Wamanrao Ghule vs Indus Towers Ltd. Through Its Manager Advocate - THOLE YTIN INDARCHANDRA — 5/2022
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33 A. Status: Respondents Evidence. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
Complaint (IT)
CNR: MHLC200002492022
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
Filing Number
334/2022
Filing Date
16-06-2022
Registration No
5/2022
Registration Date
18-06-2022
Court
Labour Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Narayan Wamanrao Ghule
Adv. KAWARE BAPUSASAHEB RGHUNATH
Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmachari Sanghatna Through Its President
Respondent(s)
Indus Towers Ltd. Through Its Manager Advocate - THOLE YTIN INDARCHANDRA
Teamlease Services Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Manager
Magnum Environment Management Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authrized Signatory
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
Case Summary Case No.: Takrar Aayti 5/2022, Nishani C-13 (Labour Court, Aurangabad) Outcome: The petition is dismissed in full. The court rejected the petitioner's claims regarding contract labor disputes and found no merit in the arguments regarding employment terms, contractor appointment, and working conditions between 2008-2017. The court upheld the lower court's findings and determined that the respondent (Defendant No. 1) was legitimately engaged as a contract laborer without violations of labor laws. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No.: Takrar Aayti 5/2022, Nishani C-13 (Labour Court, Aurangabad) Outcome: The petition is dismissed in full. The court rejected the petitioner's claims regarding contract labor disputes and found no merit in the arguments regarding employment terms, contractor appointment, and working conditions between 2008-2017. The court upheld the lower court's findings and determined that the respondent (Defendant No. 1) was legitimately engaged as a contract laborer without violations of labor laws. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts