Subhash Rambhau Bhawar vs Manager, Nayantara Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Advocate - KAWARE BAPUSASAHEB RGHUNATH — 15/2022
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28 1 30 2. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 13th April 2026.
Comp ULP - Complaint
CNR: MHLC200002792022
Next Hearing
13th April 2026
Filing Number
367/2022
Filing Date
30-06-2022
Registration No
15/2022
Registration Date
02-07-2022
Court
Labour Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Subhash Rambhau Bhawar
Adv. Salunke P.B.
Respondent(s)
Manager, Nayantara Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Advocate - KAWARE BAPUSASAHEB RGHUNATH
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 07-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 11-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 29-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary The Labour Court-II at Aurangabad rejected the interim relief application filed by Subhash S/o. Rambhau Bhawar on 05 February 2025. The complainant, who was orally terminated on 02.04.2022 after a shoulder fracture injury, sought reinstatement or 75% monthly salary pending final disposal of his unfair labour practice complaint. The court found the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case, held that balance of convenience did not favor him, and noted that back-wages if granted on merit would compensate any loss, making interim reinstatement unnecessary at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Labour Court-II at Aurangabad rejected the interim relief application filed by Subhash S/o. Rambhau Bhawar on 05 February 2025. The complainant, who was orally terminated on 02.04.2022 after a shoulder fracture injury, sought reinstatement or 75% monthly salary pending final disposal of his unfair labour practice complaint. The court found the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case, held that balance of convenience did not favor him, and noted that back-wages if granted on merit would compensate any loss, making interim reinstatement unnecessary at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts