PRASHANT HARISHCHANDRA BIBAVE vs PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — WP/15166/2024
Case under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 Section NA. Disposed: --Partly Allowed on 08th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010530522024
Filing Number
WP/30778/2024
Filing Date
21-10-2024
Registration No
WP/15166/2024
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)
PRASHANT HARISHCHANDRA BIBAVE
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
Summary of WP/15166/2024 (Prashant Harishchandra Bibave v. Pune Municipal Corporation) The Bombay High Court partially allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's termination on 19 March 2011 was unlawful because it violated a subsisting interim order dated 30 July 2010 from the Industrial Court that required continued employment until duly selected candidates joined. The court declared the termination unsustainable, directed reinstatement within 12 weeks, and awarded 25% of last drawn wages as lump-sum compensation (excluding periods of other employment), while explicitly clarifying this does not confer permanency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of WP/15166/2024 (Prashant Harishchandra Bibave v. Pune Municipal Corporation) The Bombay High Court partially allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's termination on 19 March 2011 was unlawful because it violated a subsisting interim order dated 30 July 2010 from the Industrial Court that required continued employment until duly selected candidates joined. The court declared the termination unsustainable, directed reinstatement within 12 weeks, and awarded 25% of last drawn wages as lump-sum compensation (excluding periods of other employment), while explicitly clarifying this does not confer 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