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
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
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
Disposed
Argument
Argument
Respondent Evidence
Cross Examination
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts