Kurumdas Waman Gaikwad vs Kulsachiv, Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapith Akola Advocate - Adv S G Gawai — 282/2025
Case under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 Section 4. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.
Application PGA
CNR: MHLC300005042025
Filing Number
508/2025
Filing Date
30-Sep-2025
Registration No
282/2025
Registration Date
30-Sep-2025
Court
Labour court, Akola
Judge
1-Judge Labour Court
Last updated 26-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Kurumdas Waman Gaikwad
Adv. R. N. Gaikwad, Rep
Respondent(s)
-
1.Kulsachiv, Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapith Akola Advocate - Adv S G Gawai
Case History
-
01-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Order Below Exh.View PDF
Summary: The Labour Court at Akola allowed the applicant Kurumdas Waman Gaikwad's application for document production in his gratuity claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court directed the non-applicant (employer) to produce Document No. 1 (year-wise working chart from 1976-2021) and Document No. 3 (gratuity payment receipt and bank statement), finding these documents essential to prove the applicant's length of service and salary, which the employer had disputed. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judge Labour Court
-
07-Feb-2026
Order Below Exh
Judge Labour Court
-
17-Jan-2026
Say
Judge Labour Court
-
26-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judge Labour Court
-
28-Nov-2025
For Filing Written Statement
Judge Labour Court
-
03-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 282/2025
Summary: The Labour Court at Akola allowed the applicant Kurumdas Waman Gaikwad's application for document production in his gratuity claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court directed the non-applicant (employer) to produce Document No. 1 (year-wise working chart from 1976-2021) and Document No. 3 (gratuity payment receipt and bank statement), finding these documents essential to prove the applicant's length of service and salary, which the employer had disputed. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts