State of Maharashtra Through Government Labour Officer and Inspector vs Santosh Kedar — 296/2026
Case under Contract Labour (regulation and Abolition) Act Section 12(1), 29(2),21, 62(1), 62(2), 60, 61(1). Disposed: Uncontested--CONVICTED ON PLEAD GUILTY / PLEA BARGAINING on 09th May 2026.
S.C.C. - Sum Case
CNR: MHNG150004342026
e-Filing Number
09-02-2026
Filing Number
376/2026
Filing Date
25-02-2026
Registration No
296/2026
Registration Date
25-02-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Hingna
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
Decision Date
09th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--CONVICTED ON PLEAD GUILTY / PLEA BARGAINING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through Government Labour Officer and Inspector
Adv. Utkarsh Dattatray Morankar
Respondent(s)
Santosh Kedar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C.Hingna
Disposed
Lok-Nyayalaya
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 14-03-2026 | Lok-Nyayalaya |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Hingna convicted Santosh Kedar, proprietor of M/s. Vaidyanath Fire Services Pvt. Ltd., for violations of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The accused pleaded guilty to operating as a contractor without a license and failing to display mandatory wage notices, maintain required registers, and provide inspector notices at the workplace. The court sentenced him to pay Rs. 1,000 fine (with two days simple imprisonment in default) under Section 23 of the Act and an identical fine under Section 24. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Hingna convicted Santosh Kedar, proprietor of M/s. Vaidyanath Fire Services Pvt. Ltd., for violations of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The accused pleaded guilty to operating as a contractor without a license and failing to display mandatory wage notices, maintain required registers, and provide inspector notices at the workplace. The court sentenced him to pay Rs. 1,000 fine (with two days simple imprisonment in default) under Section 23 of the Act and an identical fine under Section 24. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts