Sushila Jadhav vs Range Forest Officer Advocate - Gramopadhye Makarand Hanmantrao — 25/2017
Case under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules - 2009 Section 28. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 17th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC100000842017
Filing Number
84/2017
Filing Date
12-07-2017
Registration No
25/2017
Registration Date
12-07-2017
Court
Industrial Court ,Sangli
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sushila Jadhav
Adv. MULANI B. R.
Respondent(s)
Range Forest Officer Advocate - Gramopadhye Makarand Hanmantrao
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member, Industrial Court, Sangli
Disposed
Complaince on Order
Complaince on Order
Judgement
Argument
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Complaince on Order |
| 12-03-2026 | Complaince on Order |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 06-03-2026 | Argument |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Industrial Court at Sangli partially allowed a complaint of unfair labor practices filed by Sushila Vitthal Jadhav against the Range Forest Officer. The court declared that the respondent violated labor laws by failing to implement two prior favorable orders (from 1994 and 2009) directing the complainant's permanent employment and reinstatement with back wages—despite 32 and 15 years respectively having elapsed since those orders. The court directed the respondent to fully implement these decisions within three months, rejecting his defense that the matter was pending government approval. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Industrial Court at Sangli partially allowed a complaint of unfair labor practices filed by Sushila Vitthal Jadhav against the Range Forest Officer. The court declared that the respondent violated labor laws by failing to implement two prior favorable orders (from 1994 and 2009) directing the complainant's permanent employment and reinstatement with back wages—despite 32 and 15 years respectively having elapsed since those orders. The court directed the respondent to fully implement these decisions within three months, rejecting his defense that the matter was pending government approval. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts