Prafull Madhukarrao Ridhore vs Commissioner of Health/Mission Director, Health Bombay Advocate - C.B. Pachlore — 10/2021

Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28. Status: Argument. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.

Comp. ULP - Complaint

CNR: MHLC270000612021

Argument

Next Hearing

17th April 2026

Filing Number

61/2021

Filing Date

10-05-2021

Registration No

10/2021

Registration Date

10-05-2021

Court

Labour Court, Amravati

Judge

1-Judge, Labour Court

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28

Petitioner(s)

Prafull Madhukarrao Ridhore

Adv. D.B. Gawande

Respondent(s)

Commissioner of Health/Mission Director, Health Bombay Advocate - C.B. Pachlore

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judge, Labour Court

06-03-2026

Argument

12-02-2026

Argument

06-02-2026

Argument

17-01-2026

Argument

06-12-2025

Argument

Interim Orders

26-06-2021
Order on Exhibit

Summary The Labour Court, Amravati rejected the interim application filed by Prafull Madhukarrao Ridhore (ULP Complaint No. 10 of 2021) seeking to stay the termination order dated 05-05-2021 and reinstate him in service. The court found that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case, as his status as a contractual employee under the National Health Mission scheme for 11-month terms remained disputed and required detailed evidence at trial rather than interim relief. The application was dismissed with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Labour Court, Amravati rejected the interim application filed by Prafull Madhukarrao Ridhore (ULP Complaint No. 10 of 2021) seeking to stay the termination order dated 05-05-2021 and reinstate him in service. The court found that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case, as his status as a contractual employee under the National Health Mission scheme for 11-month terms remained disputed and required detailed evidence at trial rather than interim relief. The application was dismissed with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Labour Court, Amravati All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case