Municipal Transport Workers Union vs Kolhapur Municipal Transport Advocate - P. R. Rane — 164/2021
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: MHIC090003712021
Next Hearing
27th April 2026
Filing Number
380/2021
Filing Date
21-10-2021
Registration No
164/2021
Registration Date
22-10-2021
Court
Industrial Court, Kolhapur
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court No. 1
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Municipal Transport Workers Union
Adv. V. S. Chavan
Shivaji Mahadev Vadangekar
Adv. V. S. Chavan
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 |
| 20-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 10-12-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Industrial Court No.1, Maharashtra at Kolhapur rejected the Respondent's (Kolhapur Municipal Transport) application seeking production of caveats filed by the Complainant Union. The Court found that the Respondent failed to demonstrate the relevance of these documents to the case and that the locus-standi issue had already been raised in a previous application, to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage of proceedings. The Court held that parties cannot conduct "fishing inquiries" and must establish necessity before requesting document production. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Industrial Court No.1, Maharashtra at Kolhapur rejected the Respondent's (Kolhapur Municipal Transport) application seeking production of caveats filed by the Complainant Union. The Court found that the Respondent failed to demonstrate the relevance of these documents to the case and that the locus-standi issue had already been raised in a previous application, to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage of proceedings. The Court held that parties cannot conduct "fishing inquiries" and must establish necessity before requesting document production. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts