Vijayanand Surajwali Jaiswar vs Tata Mills Advocate - M V Bhat — 276/2025

Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28/30. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 06th March 2026.

Complaint ULP1

CNR: MHIC010006182025

Case disposed

Filing Number

727/2025

Filing Date

26-09-2025

Registration No

276/2025

Registration Date

30-09-2025

Court

Industrial Court, Mumbai

Judge

6-Member

Decision Date

06th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union And Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28/30

Petitioner(s)

Vijayanand Surajwali Jaiswar

Adv. Koyande/S R Pawar

Respondent(s)

Tata Mills Advocate - M V Bhat

The General Manager, Tata Mills

Hearing History

Judge: 6-Member

06-03-2026

Disposed

23-02-2026

Argument

18-02-2026

Argument

06-02-2026

Respondent Evidence

21-01-2026

Cross Examination

Final Orders / Judgements

06-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The Maharashtra Industrial Court held that Tata Mills committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 by retiring employee Vijayanand Jaiswar at age 60 without proving inefficiency, in violation of Clause 20-A of the Standing Orders which mandates continuation till age 63 if the employee remains efficient. The court found the respondents failed to produce any documentary evidence of declining efficiency and directed them to withdraw the retirement memo and continue the complainant's employment until he attains 63 years of age. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

06-02-2026
Evidence
06-02-2026
Evidence
18-02-2026
Evidence
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Maharashtra Industrial Court held that Tata Mills committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 by retiring employee Vijayanand Jaiswar at age 60 without proving inefficiency, in violation of Clause 20-A of the Standing Orders which mandates continuation till age 63 if the employee remains efficient. The court found the respondents failed to produce any documentary evidence of declining efficiency and directed them to withdraw the retirement memo and continue the complainant's employment until he attains 63 years of age. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Industrial Court, Mumbai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case