Shri.Ravindra Budha Landge vs Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T. Corporation, Paghar Div. and anr., Advocate - Smita H. Danke — 13/2020

Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 06th March 2026.

Case disposed

Complaint ULP

CNR: MHIC040000162020

Filing Number

17/2020

Filing Date

08-Jan-2020

Registration No

13/2020

Registration Date

08-Jan-2020

Court

Industrial Court,Thane

Judge

2-Member

Decision Date

06-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shri.Ravindra Budha Landge

    Adv. U.S.Jagdale

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T. Corporation, Paghar Div. and anr., Advocate - Smita H. Danke

  2. 2.M.S.R.T. Corporation, Through Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.Corporation Palghar Div.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Judgment CopyView PDF

    The Industrial Court, Maharashtra found that MSRTC Corporation engaged in unfair labour practices by transferring complainant Ravindra Budha Landge from Vasai Depot to Palghar Workshop in December 2019, violating its own transfer guidelines and the MRTU & PULP Act. The court quashed the transfer order, finding the corporation failed to prove administrative necessity, violated seniority principles, issued the order outside prescribed transfer months (March-April), and transferred an employee nearing retirement—all without prior notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Member

  4. 02-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    Member

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Judgment

    Member

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    Judgment

    Member

  7. 13-Feb-2026

    Citation

    Member

  8. 30-Jan-2026

    Argument

    Member

  9. 16-Jan-2026

    Argument

    Member

  10. 08-Dec-2025

    Respondent Evidence

    Member

  11. 14-Nov-2025

    Respondent Evidence

    Member

  12. 10-Oct-2025

    Respondent Evidence

    Member

  13. 06-Oct-2025

    Respondent Evidence

    Member

  14. 30-Sep-2025

    Respondent Evidence

    Member

  15. 19-Aug-2025

    Respondent Evidence

    Member

  16. 24-Jun-2025

    Respondent Evidence

  17. 30-Apr-2025

    Respondent Evidence

    Member

  18. 26-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Member

  19. 14-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Member

  20. 17-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Member

  21. 10-Jan-2025

    EvidanceView PDF

  22. 10-Jan-2025

    Cross

    Member

  23. 22-Nov-2024

    Cross

    Member

  24. 11-Oct-2024

    Order on Exh.

    Member

  25. 09-Aug-2024

    Order on Exh.

    Member

  26. 01-Jul-2024

    Order on Exh.

    Member

  27. 14-Jun-2024

    Order on Exh.

    Member

  28. 15-Mar-2024

    Cross

    Member

  29. 12-Feb-2024

    Cross

    Member

  30. 12-Jan-2024

    Cross

    Member

  31. 08-Dec-2023

    Cross

    Member

  32. 27-Oct-2023

    Cross

    Member

  33. 06-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  34. 08-Sep-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  35. 18-Aug-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  36. 28-Jul-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  37. 23-Jun-2023

    Evidence

    Member

  38. 21-Apr-2023

    Issues

    Member

  39. 10-Mar-2023

    Additional Written Statement

    Member

  40. 17-Feb-2023

    Additional Written Statement

    Member

  41. 20-Jan-2023

    Additional Written Statement

    Member

  42. 03-Jan-2023

    Additional Written Statement

    Member

  43. 06-Dec-2022

    Additional Written Statement

    Member

  44. 25-Nov-2022

    Complaince of Order

    Member

  45. 19-Oct-2022

    Reply

    Member

  46. 07-Sep-2022

    Reply

    Member

  47. 03-Aug-2022

    Reply

    Member

  48. 19-Jul-2022

    Order Below Exh.View PDF

  49. 19-Jul-2022

    Order on Exh.

    Member

  50. 18-Jul-2022

    Order on Exh.

    Member

  51. 20-Jun-2022

    Order on Exh.

    Member

  52. 25-Apr-2022

    Evidence

    Member

  53. 28-Mar-2022

    Issues

    Member

  54. 21-Feb-2022

    Say

    Member

  55. 31-Jan-2022

    Say

    Member

  56. 10-Jan-2022

    Say

    Member

  57. 03-Jan-2022

    Say

    Member

  58. 07-Dec-2021

    Say

    Member

  59. 22-Nov-2021

    Say

    Member

  60. 25-Oct-2021

    Say

    Member

  61. 18-Oct-2021

    Say

    Member

  62. 24-Sep-2021

    Say

    Member

  63. 23-Aug-2021

    Say

    Member

  64. 19-Jul-2021

    Say

    Member

  65. 14-Jun-2021

    Say

    Member

  66. 26-Apr-2021

    Say

    Member

  67. 15-Mar-2021

    Say

    Member

  68. 17-Feb-2021

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  69. 12-Feb-2021

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  70. 05-Jan-2021

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  71. 01-Dec-2020

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  72. 19-Oct-2020

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  73. 14-Sep-2020

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  74. 03-Aug-2020

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  75. 06-Jul-2020

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  76. 01-Jun-2020

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  77. 18-May-2020

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  78. 04-May-2020

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  79. 13-Apr-2020

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  80. 16-Mar-2020

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  81. 02-Mar-2020

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  82. 17-Feb-2020

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  83. 31-Jan-2020

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  84. 21-Jan-2020

    Reply

    Member

  85. 13-Jan-2020

    Notice

    Member

  86. 08-Jan-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  87. 08-Jan-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 13/2020

casestatus.in Summary

The Industrial Court, Maharashtra found that MSRTC Corporation engaged in unfair labour practices by transferring complainant Ravindra Budha Landge from Vasai Depot to Palghar Workshop in December 2019, violating its own transfer guidelines and the MRTU & PULP Act. The court quashed the transfer order, finding the corporation failed to prove administrative necessity, violated seniority principles, issued the order outside prescribed transfer months (March-April), and transferred an employee nearing retirement—all without prior notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case