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.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC040001552023
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
Filing Number
173/2023
Filing Date
20-04-2023
Registration No
78/2023
Registration Date
20-04-2023
Court
Industrial Court,Thane
Judge
2-Member
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shri. Suresh Gupta
Adv. U.R. S. K. Shinde
shri vias Urare
Sandesh Patel
Ratnakumar
Arvind Bhai Dhoni
Rajendra Ray
Neeta
Ramesh Sonya
Ramila Madhy
Ramila Arvind
Kala
Lakham
Rajesh Varma
Respondent(s)
M/s Shri. Ganesh Vyapar Udyog
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Member
Appearance
Appearance
Appearance
Appearance
Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Appearance |
| 16-01-2026 | Appearance |
| 02-01-2026 | Appearance |
| 05-12-2025 | Appearance |
| 31-10-2025 | Appearance |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts