SHRI. SIDDHIVINAYAK GANPATI TEMPLE TRUST, THROUGH EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS M. S. TOPKAR vs MR. SHAILESH DHONDU SAKPAL — WP/2035/2012

Case under M.r.t.u. & P.u.l.p. Act. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 23rd April 2026.

CNR: HCBM010088852012

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

07th March 2012

Filing Number

WP/5744/2012

Filing Date

01-03-2012

Registration No

WP/2035/2012

Registration Date

03-03-2012

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR

Bench Type

Single

Category

LABOUR MATTERS DB ( 19 )

Sub-Category

DISMISSAL/TERMINATION ( 5 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

23rd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Acts & Sections

M.r.t.u. & P.u.l.p. Act

Petitioner(s)

SHRI. SIDDHIVINAYAK GANPATI TEMPLE TRUST, THROUGH EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS M. S. TOPKAR

MR NITIN VISHNU KADAM

Respondent(s)

MR. SHAILESH DHONDU SAKPAL

Adv. R. 1123

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR

07-03-2012

FOR PRODUCTION

17-04-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

05-03-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

26-06-2025

AT 2.30 P.M.

03-04-2025

AT 2.30 P.M.

Orders

23-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR

Case Summary: WP/2035/2012 The Bombay High Court allowed the temple trust's writ petition, overturning the Industrial Court's decision that had reinstated the employee with back wages. The court held that the employee's termination during probation was justified due to loss of confidence following his admitted misconduct—concealing a Rs. 500 currency note while sorting donations—despite the lack of a formal departmental enquiry, reasoning that fairness takes different forms depending on appointment nature and the employer later justified the action through evidence before the Labour Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/2035/2012 The Bombay High Court allowed the temple trust's writ petition, overturning the Industrial Court's decision that had reinstated the employee with back wages. The court held that the employee's termination during probation was justified due to loss of confidence following his admitted misconduct—concealing a Rs. 500 currency note while sorting donations—despite the lack of a formal departmental enquiry, reasoning that fairness takes different forms depending on appointment nature and the employer later justified the action through evidence before the Labour Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case