Abdul Rauf Abdul Qayyum vs Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amravati Advocate - D.M. Shrimali — 720/2023
Case under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 7(4). Status: Respondents Evidence. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.
Appln PGA 2016
CNR: MHLC270008012023
Next Hearing
20th April 2026
Filing Number
801/2023
Filing Date
01-06-2023
Registration No
720/2023
Registration Date
01-06-2023
Court
Labour Court, Amravati
Judge
1-Judge, Labour Court
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Abdul Rauf Abdul Qayyum
Adv. N.S. Raut
Respondent(s)
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amravati Advocate - D.M. Shrimali
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judge, Labour Court
Respondents Evidence
Respondents Evidence
Respondents Evidence
Respondents Evidence
Cross Examination
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Respondents Evidence |
| 09-02-2026 | Respondents Evidence |
| 26-11-2025 | Respondents Evidence |
| 29-09-2025 | Respondents Evidence |
| 23-09-2025 | Cross Examination |
Interim Orders
This document is a transcript of witness examination in a Labour Court gratuity dispute (Application PGA/720/2023), not a final court order with a substantive ruling. It contains the applicant's testimony during examination-in-chief and cross-examination regarding a gratuity claim of ₹4,14,253 against the opponent employer, with disputes over service continuity and benefits eligibility. The document ends with "R.O.A.C." (case adjourned/reserved) and does not contain a final judgment, bail decision, or petition outcome. SKIP - This is procedural hearing testimony, not a final court order with a dispositive outcome. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document is a transcript of witness examination in a Labour Court gratuity dispute (Application PGA/720/2023), not a final court order with a substantive ruling. It contains the applicant's testimony during examination-in-chief and cross-examination regarding a gratuity claim of ₹4,14,253 against the opponent employer, with disputes over service continuity and benefits eligibility. The document ends with "R.O.A.C." (case adjourned/reserved) and does not contain a final judgment, bail decision, or petition outcome. SKIP - This is procedural hearing testimony, not a final court order with a dispositive outcome. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts