Vishal Prakash Dhale vs The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Advocate - MULE RAJARAM BALKRISHNA — 27/2020
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33C2. Status: Order. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Appln IDA - Application
CNR: MHLC200003682020
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
462/2020
Filing Date
04-11-2020
Registration No
27/2020
Registration Date
05-11-2020
Court
Labour Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vishal Prakash Dhale
Adv. WAIKOS AMIT BABARAO
Respondent(s)
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Advocate - MULE RAJARAM BALKRISHNA
Maharana Agency Security and Labour Supplier Services Aurangabad
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.
Order
Order
Order
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Order |
| 18-02-2026 | Order |
| 12-02-2026 | Order |
| 17-01-2026 | Order |
| 06-01-2026 | Order |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The Labour Court dismissed the application filed by Vishal Prakash Dhale against the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, finding it not maintainable. The court held that since the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the corporation is a serious disputed issue requiring prior adjudication, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a wage difference claim under Section 33-C(2), which is limited to computing pre-existing benefits. The applicant was directed to pursue appropriate proceedings through industrial dispute reference to establish his employment rights first. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The Labour Court dismissed the application filed by Vishal Prakash Dhale against the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, finding it not maintainable. The court held that since the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the corporation is a serious disputed issue requiring prior adjudication, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a wage difference claim under Section 33-C(2), which is limited to computing pre-existing benefits. The applicant was directed to pursue appropriate proceedings through industrial dispute reference to establish his employment rights first. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts