SHASHIBHUSHAN MARUTI HOLE vs PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — WP/15168/2024
Case under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Section NA. Disposed: --Partly Allowed on 08th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010530422024
Filing Number
WP/30770/2024
Filing Date
21-10-2024
Registration No
WP/15168/2024
Registration Date
24-10-2024
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Bench Type
Single
Category
LABOUR MATTERS SINGLE BENCH ( 65 )
Sub-Category
CASUAL DAILY WAGES ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
--Partly Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHASHIBHUSHAN MARUTI HOLE
Adv. NITIN KULKARNI
Respondent(s)
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
FOR CIRCULATION
Revoked
FOR CIRCULATION
FOR ADMISSION
FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-07-2025 | FOR CIRCULATION |
| 08-05-2026 | Revoked |
| 07-05-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
| 30-04-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
| 16-04-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
Case Summary: WP/15168/2024 - Shashibhushan Maruti Hole v. Pune Municipal Corporation Court Decision: The High Court of Bombay partially allowed the writ petition, quashing the Labour Court's judgment and declaring the 2011 termination unlawful because it violated a binding interim court order. The petitioner must be reinstated within 12 weeks but receives limited compensation (25% of last wages for unemployment gaps, excluding periods of other employment) and continuity of service only for retirement benefits—not permanency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP/15168/2024 - Shashibhushan Maruti Hole v. Pune Municipal Corporation Court Decision: The High Court of Bombay partially allowed the writ petition, quashing the Labour Court's judgment and declaring the 2011 termination unlawful because it violated a binding interim court order. The petitioner must be reinstated within 12 weeks but receives limited compensation (25% of last wages for unemployment gaps, excluding periods of other employment) and continuity of service only for retirement benefits—not permanency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts