Shri. Aktar Habib Tadvi vs Depot Manager, MSRTC, Palghar Advocate - Amruta Rajaram Patil — 175/2023

Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28. Status: Hearing on Preliminary Issue. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.

Hearing on Preliminary Issue Next hearing 20-Apr-2026 this date has passed

Complaint ULP

CNR: MHIC040003342023

Filing Number

430/2023

Filing Date

16-Sep-2023

Registration No

175/2023

Registration Date

18-Sep-2023

Court

Industrial Court,Thane

Judge

1-Member

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shri. Aktar Habib Tadvi

    Adv. Gharat Chitra N.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Depot Manager, MSRTC, Palghar Advocate - Amruta Rajaram Patil

  2. 2.The Divisional Controller MSRTC Palghar

Case History

  1. 20-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Hearing on Preliminary Issue

    Member

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing on Preliminary Issue

    Member

  4. 13-Feb-2026

    Hearing on Preliminary Issue

    Member

  5. 02-Feb-2026

    Hearing on Preliminary Issue

    Member

  6. 09-Jan-2026

    Order Below Exh.View PDF

    Summary: The Industrial Court at Thane, Maharashtra framed seven issues in this Unfair Labour Practice (ULP) complaint filed by employee Aktar Habib Tadvi against Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, challenging a punishment order imposed after an inquiry. The court will decide whether the inquiry was fair, whether the findings were supported by evidence, whether misconduct charges are proven, and whether the punishment is disproportionate. The court directed that issues regarding inquiry fairness and findings' perversity will be decided based on original inquiry papers without permitting additional evidence from parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 09-Jan-2026

    Hearing on Preliminary Issue

    Member

  8. 08-Dec-2025

    Cross

    Member

  9. 03-Nov-2025

    Cross

    Member

  10. 15-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Member

  11. 14-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Member

  12. 23-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Member

  13. 09-Jun-2025

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  14. 25-Apr-2025

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  15. 07-Apr-2025

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  16. 10-Feb-2025

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  17. 13-Jan-2025

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  18. 06-Dec-2024

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  19. 22-Nov-2024

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  20. 21-Oct-2024

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  21. 23-Sep-2024

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  22. 05-Aug-2024

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  23. 08-Jul-2024

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  24. 14-Jun-2024

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  25. 19-Apr-2024

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  26. 01-Apr-2024

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  27. 18-Mar-2024

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member

  28. 11-Mar-2024

    Reply

    Member

  29. 01-Mar-2024

    Reply

    Member

  30. 23-Feb-2024

    Reply

    Member

  31. 02-Feb-2024

    Reply

    Member

  32. 22-Jan-2024

    Written Statement

    Member

  33. 08-Dec-2023

    Written Statement

    Member

  34. 01-Dec-2023

    Appearance

    Member

  35. 06-Nov-2023

    Appearance

    Member

  36. 16-Oct-2023

    Appearance

    Member

  37. 25-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 16-Sep-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 175/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Industrial Court at Thane, Maharashtra framed seven issues in this Unfair Labour Practice (ULP) complaint filed by employee Aktar Habib Tadvi against Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, challenging a punishment order imposed after an inquiry. The court will decide whether the inquiry was fair, whether the findings were supported by evidence, whether misconduct charges are proven, and whether the punishment is disproportionate. The court directed that issues regarding inquiry fairness and findings' perversity will be decided based on original inquiry papers without permitting additional evidence from parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case