ANIL GAJANAN MANE SHRI. NITIN A. KULKARNI vs THE THANE JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED Advocate - GUNJAN DEEPAK THAKKAR — WP/2901/2011
Case under M.r.t.u. & P.u.l.p. Act. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 30th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010113592011
Next Hearing
13th April 2011
Filing Number
WP/8053/2011
Filing Date
23-03-2011
Registration No
WP/2901/2011
Registration Date
08-04-2011
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ANIL GAJANAN MANE SHRI. NITIN A. KULKARNI
Respondent(s)
THE THANE JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED Advocate - GUNJAN DEEPAK THAKKAR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
FOR ADMISSION - FRESH CIVIL SIDE MATTERS
AT 3.00 P.M.
AT 3.00 P.M.
AT 3.00 P.M.
FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-04-2011 | FOR ADMISSION - FRESH CIVIL SIDE MATTERS |
| 17-04-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 06-03-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 06-02-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 15-09-2025 | FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
Case Summary: WP/2901/2011 Court Decision: The High Court of Bombay dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Industrial Court's order granting Rs. 2,00,000 lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement. The petitioner, a bank peon with ~3 years service whose wrongful termination was established, cannot be reinstated due to: (1) lengthy 11+ year litigation delay, (2) employer bank's 2007 merger reducing staffing needs, and (3) short service period. While acknowledging the violation of labor law and prior permanency grant, the court found compensation a more practical remedy given changed circumstances, rejecting the argument that compensation rewards employer misconduct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP/2901/2011 Court Decision: The High Court of Bombay dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Industrial Court's order granting Rs. 2,00,000 lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement. The petitioner, a bank peon with ~3 years service whose wrongful termination was established, cannot be reinstated due to: (1) lengthy 11+ year litigation delay, (2) employer bank's 2007 merger reducing staffing needs, and (3) short service period. While acknowledging the violation of labor law and prior permanency grant, the court found compensation a more practical remedy given changed circumstances, rejecting the argument that compensation rewards employer misconduct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts