Kamlakar Sadashivrao Joshi vs Municipal Commissioner, Amravati Municipal Corporation, Amravati and Ors — 34/2025

Case under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 7. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 05th May 2026.

Issues Next hearing 05-May-2026 this date has passed

Appln PGA 2016

CNR: MHLC270000652025

Filing Number

66/2025

Filing Date

13-Mar-2025

Registration No

34/2025

Registration Date

13-Mar-2025

Court

Labour Court, Amravati

Judge

1-Judge, Labour Court

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 7

Petitioner(s)

1.Kamlakar Sadashivrao Joshi

Adv. A. S. Patrikar

Respondent(s)

1.Municipal Commissioner, Amravati Municipal Corporation, Amravati and Ors

Case History

05-May-2026

Next hearingPending
06-Mar-2026

Issues

Judge, Labour Court
03-Dec-2025

Issues

Judge, Labour Court
04-Oct-2025

Issues

Judge, Labour Court
12-Sep-2025

Issues

Judge, Labour Court
07-Aug-2025

Appearance

Judge, Labour Court
20-Jun-2025

Appearance

Judge, Labour Court
13-May-2025

Appearance

Judge, Labour Court
15-Apr-2025

Order on ExhibitView PDF
15-Apr-2025

Order on ExhibitView PDF

Summary: The Labour Court, Amravati allowed the application (PGA No. 34 of 2025) filed by the applicant seeking permission to file copies of request letters and other documents on record. The court found that these documents are necessary for just decision in the gratuity payment dispute case against the employer, despite the employer's contention that the documents were irrelevant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
15-Apr-2025

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
13-Mar-2025

Case filed

Registration No. 34/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Labour Court, Amravati allowed the application (PGA No. 34 of 2025) filed by the applicant seeking permission to file copies of request letters and other documents on record. The court found that these documents are necessary for just decision in the gratuity payment dispute case against the employer, despite the employer's contention that the documents were irrelevant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.