Vijay Madhusudan Gawde vs Tata Mill Advocate - M V Bhat — 279/2025

Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28/30. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 13th March 2026.

Complaint ULP1

CNR: MHIC010006342025

Case disposed

Filing Number

743/2025

Filing Date

06-10-2025

Registration No

279/2025

Registration Date

07-10-2025

Court

Industrial Court, Mumbai

Judge

6-Member

Decision Date

13th 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)

Vijay Madhusudan Gawde

Adv. Koyande/S R Pawar

Respondent(s)

Tata Mill Advocate - M V Bhat

The General Manager, Tata Mill

Hearing History

Judge: 6-Member

13-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

Argument

06-03-2026

Argument

04-03-2026

Argument

18-02-2026

Respondent Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

13-03-2026
Judgement

Summary The Industrial Court, Maharashtra found that Tata Mills committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 by illegally retiring employee Vijay Madhusudan Gawde at age 60 without documentary evidence of inefficiency. The court held that Standing Order Clause 20-A mandatorily requires male operatives to be retained until age 63 if efficient, and since the respondents failed to prove inefficiency through any memo, medical report, or charge sheet, the employee is entitled to continue working until age 63. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

18-02-2026
Evidence
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Industrial Court, Maharashtra found that Tata Mills committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 by illegally retiring employee Vijay Madhusudan Gawde at age 60 without documentary evidence of inefficiency. The court held that Standing Order Clause 20-A mandatorily requires male operatives to be retained until age 63 if efficient, and since the respondents failed to prove inefficiency through any memo, medical report, or charge sheet, the employee is entitled to continue working until age 63. 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