Municipal Transport Workers Union vs Kolhapur Municipal Transport Advocate - P. R. Rane — 154/2021
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28. Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 27th April 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC090003562021
Next Hearing
27th April 2026
Filing Number
5000366/2021
Filing Date
12-10-2021
Registration No
154/2021
Registration Date
12-10-2021
Court
Industrial Court, Kolhapur
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court No. 1
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Municipal Transport Workers Union
Adv. V. S. Chavan
Shri. Ramakant Surupsing Gaikwad
Respondent(s)
Kolhapur Municipal Transport Advocate - P. R. Rane
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member, Industrial Court No. 1
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 18-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 17-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 07-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Complaint (ULP) No. 154/2021 | Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Kolhapur The Industrial Court partly allowed the application filed by Municipal Transport Workers Union challenging Kolhapur Municipal Transport's process of granting permanency to compassionate appointment candidates. The Court found the respondent's apprehension well-founded that daily wage (Badli) employees might be ignored and directed the respondent to comply with the 2002 settlement terms while granting permanency to compassionate appointment candidates. The Court noted the respondent failed to submit complete policy details and documentation despite sufficient opportunity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Complaint (ULP) No. 154/2021 | Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Kolhapur The Industrial Court partly allowed the application filed by Municipal Transport Workers Union challenging Kolhapur Municipal Transport's process of granting permanency to compassionate appointment candidates. The Court found the respondent's apprehension well-founded that daily wage (Badli) employees might be ignored and directed the respondent to comply with the 2002 settlement terms while granting permanency to compassionate appointment candidates. The Court noted the respondent failed to submit complete policy details and documentation despite sufficient opportunity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts