Meena Ganapati Patil vs Regional Controller, M. S. R. T. C. Sangli Region, Sangli. Advocate - Jagdale Narayan Maruti — 3/2026
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act Section 44. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 06th March 2026.
Revn. Appln. ULP - Revision
CNR: MHIC100000212026
Filing Number
22/2026
Filing Date
03-02-2026
Registration No
3/2026
Registration Date
03-02-2026
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Meena Ganapati Patil
Adv. Mutaalik Sanadiip Shashikant
Respondent(s)
Regional Controller, M. S. R. T. C. Sangli Region, Sangli. Advocate - Jagdale Narayan Maruti
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Disposed
Judgement
Additional Argument
Argument
Argument
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-02-2026 | Judgement |
| 21-02-2026 | Additional Argument |
| 20-02-2026 | Argument |
| 16-02-2026 | Argument |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Industrial Court at Sangli rejected Meena Ganapati Patil's revision against the Labour Court's dismissal of her unfair labour practice complaint, holding that she is not a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court found that despite her Class III designation, her predominant duties were supervisory in nature (supervising workers, maintaining registers, conducting inspections), and her monthly wages of Rs. 38,000 exceeded the statutory ceiling, disqualifying her from workman status. The court permitted her to file a reply to the disciplinary show cause notice within 15 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The Industrial Court at Sangli rejected Meena Ganapati Patil's revision against the Labour Court's dismissal of her unfair labour practice complaint, holding that she is not a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court found that despite her Class III designation, her predominant duties were supervisory in nature (supervising workers, maintaining registers, conducting inspections), and her monthly wages of Rs. 38,000 exceeded the statutory ceiling, disqualifying her from workman status. The court permitted her to file a reply to the disciplinary show cause notice within 15 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts