Shri. Suresh Gupta vs M/s Shri. Ganesh Vyapar Udyog — 78/2023

Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28. Status: Appearance. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.

Appearance Next hearing 17-Apr-2026 this date has passed

Complaint ULP

CNR: MHIC040001552023

Filing Number

173/2023

Filing Date

20-Apr-2023

Registration No

78/2023

Registration Date

20-Apr-2023

Court

Industrial Court,Thane

Judge

2-Member

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shri. Suresh Gupta

    Adv. U.R. S. K. Shinde

  2. 2.shri vias Urare

  3. 3.Sandesh Patel

  4. 4.Ratnakumar

  5. 5.Arvind Bhai Dhoni

  6. 6.Rajendra Ray

  7. 7.Neeta

  8. 8.Ramesh Sonya

  9. 9.Ramila Madhy

  10. 10.Ramila Arvind

  11. 11.Kala

  12. 12.Lakham

  13. 13.Rajesh Varma

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/s Shri. Ganesh Vyapar Udyog

Case History

  1. 17-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Appearance

    Member

  3. 16-Jan-2026

    Appearance

    Member

  4. 02-Jan-2026

    Appearance

    Member

  5. 05-Dec-2025

    Appearance

    Member

  6. 31-Oct-2025

    Appearance

    Member

  7. 22-Aug-2025

    Appearance

    Member

  8. 21-Jul-2025

    Appearance

    Member

  9. 09-Jun-2025

    Appearance

    Member

  10. 11-Apr-2025

    Appearance

    Member

  11. 07-Mar-2025

    Appearance

    Member

  12. 04-Feb-2025

    Appearance

    Member

  13. 17-Dec-2024

    Appearance

    Member

  14. 08-Oct-2024

    Appearance

    Member

  15. 02-Jul-2024

    Appearance

    Member

  16. 16-Apr-2024

    Appearance

    Member

  17. 06-Feb-2024

    Appearance

    Member

  18. 09-Jan-2024

    Appearance

    Member

  19. 21-Nov-2023

    Appearance

    Member

  20. 03-Oct-2023

    Appearance

    Member

  21. 29-Aug-2023

    Appearance

    Member

  22. 25-Jul-2023

    Appearance

    Member

  23. 07-Jul-2023

    Order Below Exh.View PDF

    Summary The Industrial Court of Maharashtra at Thane rejected the interim relief application filed by 13 workers against their employers under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The workers alleged unfair labor practices and sought to restrain the company from removing plant and machinery to secure their unpaid wages, gratuity, and closure compensation. However, the court found no prima facie case due to lack of documentary evidence establishing the employer-employee relationship (only 4 employees were documented in EPF records versus 13 claiming status), and held that the secured creditor bank's SARFAESI Act rights took priority over unsecured employee claims absent a specific undertaking like in prior Supreme Court precedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  24. 07-Jul-2023

    Appearance

    Member

  25. 26-Jun-2023

    Order on Exh.

    Member

  26. 20-Jun-2023

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  27. 17-Jun-2023

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  28. 12-Jun-2023

    Order Below Exh.View PDF

  29. 12-Jun-2023

    Complaince of Order

    Member

  30. 06-Jun-2023

    Say

    Member

  31. 02-May-2023

    Appearance

    Member

  32. 21-Apr-2023

    Order Below Exh.View PDF

  33. 21-Apr-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  34. 20-Apr-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 78/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Industrial Court of Maharashtra at Thane rejected the interim relief application filed by 13 workers against their employers under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The workers alleged unfair labor practices and sought to restrain the company from removing plant and machinery to secure their unpaid wages, gratuity, and closure compensation. However, the court found no prima facie case due to lack of documentary evidence establishing the employer-employee relationship (only 4 employees were documented in EPF records versus 13 claiming status), and held that the secured creditor bank's SARFAESI Act rights took priority over unsecured employee claims absent a specific undertaking like in prior Supreme Court precedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case