Sanjay Devidas Mate vs M/s. Indus Towers Ltd. Through its Manager Advocate - THOLE YTIN INDARCHANDRA — 7/2022
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33A. Status: Respondents Evidence. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
Complaint (IT)
CNR: MHLC200002892022
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
Filing Number
403/2022
Filing Date
15-07-2022
Registration No
7/2022
Registration Date
20-07-2022
Court
Labour Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sanjay Devidas Mate
Adv. KAWARE BAPUSASAHEB RGHUNATH
Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmachari Sanghatna (Through its President)
Adv. KAWARE BAPUSASAHEB RGHUNATH
Respondent(s)
M/s. Indus Towers Ltd. Through its Manager Advocate - THOLE YTIN INDARCHANDRA
M/s. Teamlease Services Pvt. Ltd. Through its Manager
Adv. GADEKAR NARESH RAJARAM
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
This is a Labor Court (Industrial Court) judgment from Aurangabad dated March 6, 2026, in a dispute between opposing parties regarding employment terms and contractor status. The court rejected the petitioner's claims that certain work was primary work requiring permanent employment status, finding instead that the work was temporary/contractual in nature, and dismissed the petition in full. The court ruled that the respondent/contractor's employment was governed by the terms of their 2012 agreement and relevant registration requirements, with no grounds established for the court to order permanent employment status. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a Labor Court (Industrial Court) judgment from Aurangabad dated March 6, 2026, in a dispute between opposing parties regarding employment terms and contractor status. The court rejected the petitioner's claims that certain work was primary work requiring permanent employment status, finding instead that the work was temporary/contractual in nature, and dismissed the petition in full. The court ruled that the respondent/contractor's employment was governed by the terms of their 2012 agreement and relevant registration requirements, with no grounds established for the court to order permanent employment status. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts