Girishkant Krishnaprasad Dubey vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. Advocate - Anjali Prabhakar Purav — 159/2020

Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28. Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.

Cross Examination Next hearing 10-Apr-2026 this date has passed

Complaint ULP1

CNR: MHIC010004002020

Filing Number

499/2020

Filing Date

19-Oct-2020

Registration No

159/2020

Registration Date

29-Oct-2020

Court

Industrial Court, Mumbai

Judge

1-President

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Girishkant Krishnaprasad Dubey

    Adv. B.K.Hegde

  2. 2.Shri Pramod mulchand yadav

  3. 3.Shri Suhas Ravindra Tamhane

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shangrila Food Products Ltd. Advocate - Anjali Prabhakar Purav

  2. 2.Vedanta Vivek Pitti, Chairman Managing Director Shangrila Food Poduct LTd.

Case History

  1. 10-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Cross Examination

    President

  3. 13-Feb-2026

    Cross Examination

    President

  4. 20-Jan-2026

    Cross Examination

    President

  5. 19-Dec-2025

    Cross Examination

    President

  6. 28-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    President

  7. 21-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    President

  8. 14-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    President

  9. 26-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    President

  10. 22-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    President

  11. 18-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    President

  12. 30-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    President

  13. 02-May-2025

    Evidence

    President

  14. 21-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    President

  15. 14-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    President

  16. 17-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    President

  17. 29-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    President

  18. 25-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    President

  19. 06-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    President

  20. 02-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    President

  21. 28-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    President

  22. 26-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    I.c.member

  23. 22-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    I.c.member

  24. 16-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    I.c.member

  25. 12-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    I.c.member

  26. 22-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  27. 24-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  28. 03-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  29. 06-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  30. 01-Sep-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  31. 28-Jul-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  32. 16-Jun-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  33. 21-Apr-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  34. 10-Mar-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  35. 17-Feb-2023

    Issues

    Member

  36. 13-Jan-2023

    Documents Issues

    Member

  37. 25-Nov-2022

    Documents Issues

    Member

  38. 14-Oct-2022

    Documents Issues

    Member

  39. 23-Sep-2022

    Documents Issues

    Member

  40. 26-Aug-2022

    Documents Issues

    Member

  41. 29-Jul-2022

    Written Statement

    Member

  42. 22-Jul-2022

    Written Statement

    Member

  43. 17-Jun-2022

    Written Statement

    I.c.member

  44. 08-Apr-2022

    Written Statement

    Member

  45. 25-Mar-2022

    Written Statement

    Member

  46. 25-Feb-2022

    Written Statement

    Member

  47. 28-Jan-2022

    Written Statement

    Member

  48. 10-Dec-2021

    Written Statement

    Member

  49. 29-Oct-2021

    Written Statement

    Member

  50. 08-Oct-2021

    Written Statement

    Member

  51. 03-Sep-2021

    Written Statement

    Member

  52. 20-Aug-2021

    Written Statement

    Member

  53. 23-Jul-2021

    Written Statement

    Member

  54. 14-Jun-2021

    Written Statement

    Member

  55. 23-Apr-2021

    Written Statement

    Member

  56. 26-Mar-2021

    Written Statement

    Member

  57. 12-Mar-2021

    Order below Exh---View PDF

    Summary: The Industrial Court rejected the application for interim relief filed by three suspended workers seeking subsistence allowance from February 2020 onwards. The court found that the complainants failed to establish a prima facie case of unfair labor practice and had suppressed material facts, including a prior rejection of similar relief by another Industrial Court judge and an ongoing High Court petition on the company's closure. The company had deposited terminal dues with the High Court and paid subsistence allowance through January 2020 as directed, making the matter sub-judice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  58. 12-Mar-2021

    Written Statement

    Member

  59. 06-Mar-2021

    Order below Exh.______

    Member

  60. 05-Mar-2021

    Order below Exh.______

    Member

  61. 26-Feb-2021

    Order below Exh.______

    Member

  62. 12-Feb-2021

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  63. 29-Jan-2021

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  64. 18-Dec-2020

    Reply

    Member

  65. 12-Nov-2020

    Reply

    Member

  66. 31-Oct-2020

    Service Report

    Member

  67. 29-Oct-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  68. 19-Oct-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 159/2020

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Industrial Court rejected the application for interim relief filed by three suspended workers seeking subsistence allowance from February 2020 onwards. The court found that the complainants failed to establish a prima facie case of unfair labor practice and had suppressed material facts, including a prior rejection of similar relief by another Industrial Court judge and an ongoing High Court petition on the company's closure. The company had deposited terminal dues with the High Court and paid subsistence allowance through January 2020 as directed, making the matter sub-judice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case