Ramesh K. vs The Managing Partner, M/S Raj Fishmeal and Oil Company, Udupi Advocate - Abhishesk Kaniyoor — 13/2021

Case under Industrial Disputes Act Section U/Sec.10-4A. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 13th March 2026.

Ref.10.1.C.OF ID ACT

CNR: KAUP010000872021

HEARING

Next Hearing

13th March 2026

Filing Number

13/2021

Filing Date

04-01-2021

Registration No

13/2021

Registration Date

19-01-2021

Court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI

Judge

507-Prl District and Sessions Judge

Acts & Sections

Industrial Disputes Act Section U/Sec.10-4A

Petitioner(s)

Ramesh K.

Adv. NAGARAJ.K

Respondent(s)

The Managing Partner, M/S Raj Fishmeal and Oil Company, Udupi Advocate - Abhishesk Kaniyoor

Hearing History

Judge: 507-Prl District and Sessions Judge

06-03-2026

HEARING

26-02-2026

HEARING

17-02-2026

HEARING

07-02-2026

ORDERS

30-01-2026

ORDERS

Interim Orders

15-07-2021
Issue
17-08-2021
Issue
22-07-2022
Orders
16-11-2022
Deposition
12-04-2023
Deposition
15-07-2023
Deposition
26-08-2023
Deposition

Summary Case ID: I.D 13/2021 R.W. 1 Date: 26-08-2023 The court found multiple procedural irregularities in the internal inquiry conducted against the petitioner (an employee/sweeper). The court held that the petitioner was not given proper notice of charges, adequate time to respond, or fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The inquiry officer did not properly document the petitioner's statement and violated natural justice principles. The court set aside the one-sided inquiry report and directed a fresh, fair inquiry to be conducted with proper procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary Case ID: I.D 13/2021 R.W. 1 Date: 26-08-2023 The court found multiple procedural irregularities in the internal inquiry conducted against the petitioner (an employee/sweeper). The court held that the petitioner was not given proper notice of charges, adequate time to respond, or fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The inquiry officer did not properly document the petitioner's statement and violated natural justice principles. The court set aside the one-sided inquiry report and directed a fresh, fair inquiry to be conducted with proper procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case