AMOL BALASAHEB TAPKIR vs PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PMC BUILDING — WP/15167/2024
Case under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Section NA. Disposed: --Partly Allowed on 08th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010530432024
Filing Number
WP/30771/2024
Filing Date
21-10-2024
Registration No
WP/15167/2024
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)
AMOL BALASAHEB TAPKIR
Adv. NITIN KULKARNI
Respondent(s)
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PMC BUILDING
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
Summary of WP/15167/2024 (Amol Balasaheb Tapkir v. Pune Municipal Corporation) The High Court of Bombay quashed the Labour Court's judgment rejecting the petitioner's industrial dispute claim. The court declared that the 19 March 2011 termination was illegal because it violated a binding interim order (30 July 2010) directing continuation until duly selected candidates joined. The court ordered reinstatement with continuity for limited retiral benefits only—explicitly excluding permanency—and awarded 25% lump-sum compensation instead of full back wages, recognizing the petitioners' subsequent employment elsewhere. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of WP/15167/2024 (Amol Balasaheb Tapkir v. Pune Municipal Corporation) The High Court of Bombay quashed the Labour Court's judgment rejecting the petitioner's industrial dispute claim. The court declared that the 19 March 2011 termination was illegal because it violated a binding interim order (30 July 2010) directing continuation until duly selected candidates joined. The court ordered reinstatement with continuity for limited retiral benefits only—explicitly excluding permanency—and awarded 25% lump-sum compensation instead of full back wages, recognizing the petitioners' subsequent employment elsewhere. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts