Municipal Transport Workers Union vs Kolhapur Municipal Transport Advocate - P. R. Rane — 172/2021
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: MHIC090003792021
Next Hearing
27th April 2026
Filing Number
388/2021
Filing Date
21-10-2021
Registration No
172/2021
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
Bhagwan Pandurang Patil
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 |
| 03-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-12-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary The Industrial Court No. 1, Maharashtra at Kolhapur rejected the Respondent's application seeking production of caveats filed by the Municipal Transport Workers Union, finding no necessity for such document production as the locus-standi issue had already been raised in an earlier application and would be adjudicated at the appropriate stage of proceedings. The Court held that the Respondent failed to demonstrate the relevance of the requested documents and that parties cannot embark on "fishing inquiries" without establishing proper grounds for 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 application seeking production of caveats filed by the Municipal Transport Workers Union, finding no necessity for such document production as the locus-standi issue had already been raised in an earlier application and would be adjudicated at the appropriate stage of proceedings. The Court held that the Respondent failed to demonstrate the relevance of the requested documents and that parties cannot embark on "fishing inquiries" without establishing proper grounds for 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