THE PRINCIPAL vs SMT. VINEETA DASS — WP/79/2015
Case under M.r.t.u. & P.u.l.p. Act. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 30th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010502622014
Next Hearing
12th January 2015
Filing Number
WP/33386/2014
Filing Date
18-12-2014
Registration No
WP/79/2015
Registration Date
06-01-2015
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Bench Type
Single
Category
LABOUR MATTERS DB ( 19 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE PRINCIPAL
Adv. AUMKAR VIJAYKUMAR JOSHI
Respondent(s)
SMT. VINEETA DASS
Adv. ,verma kalika shanker 1123
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
FOR CIRCULATION CIVIL SIDE
AT 3.00 P.M.
AT 3.00 P.M.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-01-2015 | FOR CIRCULATION CIVIL SIDE |
| 23-04-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 06-03-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 22-07-2025 | |
| 22-07-2025 |
Orders
Summary: The High Court of Bombay allowed the writ petition and quashed the Industrial Court's November 2014 judgment that had found Modern College guilty of unfair labor practices. The Court held that Vineeta Dass's complaint lacked essential particulars (no names of comparator employees or proof they performed identical duties), the respondent was never appointed to a permanent/sanctioned post, and the Industrial Court contradicted itself by denying her appointment claim while granting equivalent pay scale relief—relief cannot be sustained without legal foundation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The High Court of Bombay allowed the writ petition and quashed the Industrial Court's November 2014 judgment that had found Modern College guilty of unfair labor practices. The Court held that Vineeta Dass's complaint lacked essential particulars (no names of comparator employees or proof they performed identical duties), the respondent was never appointed to a permanent/sanctioned post, and the Industrial Court contradicted itself by denying her appointment claim while granting equivalent pay scale relief—relief cannot be sustained without legal foundation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts