SHAHAJI MADHUKAR JADHAV vs ALICON CASTALLOY LTD. — WP/2175/2025
Case under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Section ---. Disposed: --Disposed Off on 30th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010120452023
Filing Number
WP/7113/2023
Filing Date
13-03-2023
Registration No
WP/2175/2025
Registration Date
13-02-2025
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Bench Type
Single
Category
LABOUR MATTERS DB ( 19 )
Sub-Category
OTHERS ( 99 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHAHAJI MADHUKAR JADHAV
Adv. Gaurav Gawande
Respondent(s)
ALICON CASTALLOY LTD.
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS)
FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS)
FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS)
FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS)
FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2024 | FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS) |
| 08-01-2024 | FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS) |
| 28-11-2023 | FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS) |
| 17-10-2023 | FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS) |
| 26-04-2024 | FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
Case Summary: WP/2175/2025 - Shahaji Madhukar Jadhav v. Alicon Castalloy Ltd. The Bombay High Court partly allowed the writ petitions and remanded the case to Labour Court for fresh adjudication. The court found the termination order based on alleged submission of a forged B.A. certificate lacked sufficient evidentiary foundation—no document proving the petitioner appeared for or failed the B.A. exam existed, the handwriting expert's report was relied upon without the expert being examined, and a crucial 2011 audit report (allegedly revealing the forgery) was never produced. While the court acknowledged the employer's documentary evidence raised suspicions, it held suspicion cannot substitute proof of misconduct. The case was remitted to allow both parties to lead fresh evidence before the Labour Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP/2175/2025 - Shahaji Madhukar Jadhav v. Alicon Castalloy Ltd. The Bombay High Court partly allowed the writ petitions and remanded the case to Labour Court for fresh adjudication. The court found the termination order based on alleged submission of a forged B.A. certificate lacked sufficient evidentiary foundation—no document proving the petitioner appeared for or failed the B.A. exam existed, the handwriting expert's report was relied upon without the expert being examined, and a crucial 2011 audit report (allegedly revealing the forgery) was never produced. While the court acknowledged the employer's documentary evidence raised suspicions, it held suspicion cannot substitute proof of misconduct. The case was remitted to allow both parties to lead fresh 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