Japfa Comfeed India Pvt. Ltd. vs Kashinath Jadhav Advocate - V. H. Shekdar — 9/2024

Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 44. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 06th March 2026.

Revn. Appln. ULP

CNR: MHIC120000502024

Case disposed

Filing Number

50/2024

Filing Date

16-01-2024

Registration No

9/2024

Registration Date

29-01-2024

Court

Industrial Court, Pune

Judge

2-MEMBER, 2nd INDUSTRIAL COURT, PUNE.

Decision Date

06th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union And Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 44

Petitioner(s)

Japfa Comfeed India Pvt. Ltd.

Adv. V.S. Dhamankar

Respondent(s)

Kashinath Jadhav Advocate - V. H. Shekdar

Hearing History

Judge: 2-MEMBER, 2nd INDUSTRIAL COURT, PUNE.

06-03-2026

Disposed

02-03-2026

Judgment

13-02-2026

Judgment

23-01-2026

Judgment

24-12-2025

Judgment

Final Orders / Judgements

06-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The Industrial Court of Maharashtra rejected Japfa Comfeed India Pvt. Ltd.'s revision application challenging the Labour Court's order that stayed the dismissal of Kashinath Jadhav, a Senior Executive (Breeding), pending determination of whether he qualified as a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court found the Labour Court's interim relief order reasonable, as there was prima facie evidence that the employee lacked adequate opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry (notices were returned unserved, documents were not provided), and directed the Labour Court to expedite the preliminary issue hearing within six months without prejudgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Industrial Court of Maharashtra rejected Japfa Comfeed India Pvt. Ltd.'s revision application challenging the Labour Court's order that stayed the dismissal of Kashinath Jadhav, a Senior Executive (Breeding), pending determination of whether he qualified as a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court found the Labour Court's interim relief order reasonable, as there was prima facie evidence that the employee lacked adequate opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry (notices were returned unserved, documents were not provided), and directed the Labour Court to expedite the preliminary issue hearing within six months without prejudgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Industrial Court, Pune All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case