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.
Complaint ULP1
CNR: MHIC010004002020
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
499/2020
Filing Date
19-10-2020
Registration No
159/2020
Registration Date
29-10-2020
Court
Industrial Court, Mumbai
Judge
1-PRESIDENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Girishkant Krishnaprasad Dubey
Adv. B.K.Hegde
Shri Pramod mulchand yadav
Shri Suhas Ravindra Tamhane
Respondent(s)
Shangrila Food Products Ltd. Advocate - Anjali Prabhakar Purav
Vedanta Vivek Pitti, Chairman Managing Director Shangrila Food Poduct LTd.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRESIDENT
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 13-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 20-01-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 19-12-2025 | Cross Examination |
| 28-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts