Aabasaheb Pandurang Aiwale vs M. S. R. T. C. Sangli Advocate - Yadav Dhairyasheel Shamarao — 20/2019
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28(1). Status: Argument. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100000382019
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
38/2019
Filing Date
28-02-2019
Registration No
20/2019
Registration Date
28-02-2019
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Aabasaheb Pandurang Aiwale
Adv. Mutaalik Sanadiip Shashikant
Respondent(s)
M. S. R. T. C. Sangli Advocate - Yadav Dhairyasheel Shamarao
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Argument
Argument
Argument
Argument
Argument
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Argument |
| 06-03-2026 | Argument |
| 06-02-2026 | Argument |
| 17-01-2026 | Argument |
| 19-12-2025 | Argument |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: In this Industrial Court case (Complaint (ULP) No. 20/2019) from Sangli dated 04-10-2025, the court examined a complainant's employment status involving reinstatement and medical fitness. The complainant, originally declared unfit for the driver position due to color blindness in 2012, was subsequently given an alternative posting as a security guard in 2014 under a 2014 directive. The court rejected the complainant's challenge to a 2020 circular that cancelled the 2016 circular and found no grounds to subject the complainant to further medical examination. The petition is dismissed in its entirety (Ulattapass Purn Jhala / Feratpass Kahi Nahi), with the court holding that there was no valid reason for re-examination after the complainant was already given alternative employment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: In this Industrial Court case (Complaint (ULP) No. 20/2019) from Sangli dated 04-10-2025, the court examined a complainant's employment status involving reinstatement and medical fitness. The complainant, originally declared unfit for the driver position due to color blindness in 2012, was subsequently given an alternative posting as a security guard in 2014 under a 2014 directive. The court rejected the complainant's challenge to a 2020 circular that cancelled the 2016 circular and found no grounds to subject the complainant to further medical examination. The petition is dismissed in its entirety (Ulattapass Purn Jhala / Feratpass Kahi Nahi), with the court holding that there was no valid reason for re-examination after the complainant was already given alternative employment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts