Maharashtra Rajya Vidut Vitaran Co. vs Maharashtra Vij Kantrati Kamgar Sangh Advocate - Vijay P Vaidya — 33/2019
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 12(4). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
Reference IT - Reference
CNR: MHIC010010052019
Next Hearing
07th April 2026
Filing Number
1209/2019
Filing Date
10-12-2019
Registration No
33/2019
Registration Date
24-12-2019
Court
Industrial Court, Mumbai
Judge
6-Member
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Maharashtra Rajya Vidut Vitaran Co.
Adv. L.R.Mohite
Respondent(s)
Maharashtra Vij Kantrati Kamgar Sangh Advocate - Vijay P Vaidya
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Member
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 25-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 13-10-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Veej Kantrati Kamgar Sangh Interim Relief Application Partly Allowed (16/09/2020) The Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai granted partial interim relief to approximately 3,231 contract laborers: the First Party must continue their employment until final disposition of the Reference, though the company retains freedom to proceed with new recruitment advertisements. The tribunal rejected the union's plea to restrain the filling of advertised positions, finding the contract employees are entitled to service protection subject to the eventual outcome of the case on whether the contracting arrangement is genuinely sham/bogus or whether permanent status should be granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Veej Kantrati Kamgar Sangh Interim Relief Application Partly Allowed (16/09/2020) The Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai granted partial interim relief to approximately 3,231 contract laborers: the First Party must continue their employment until final disposition of the Reference, though the company retains freedom to proceed with new recruitment advertisements. The tribunal rejected the union's plea to restrain the filling of advertised positions, finding the contract employees are entitled to service protection subject to the eventual outcome of the case on whether the contracting arrangement is genuinely sham/bogus or whether permanent status should be granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts