Raju Murlidhar Tupe vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Advocate - S B Mene — 156/2018
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 Section 28. Status: Argument. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.
COMPLAINT ULP
CNR: MHIC200001422018
Next Hearing
08th April 2026
Filing Number
597/2018
Filing Date
01-10-2018
Registration No
156/2018
Registration Date
01-10-2018
Court
Industrial Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, AURANGABAD.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Raju Murlidhar Tupe
Adv. B.R.Kawre
Respondent(s)
City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Advocate - S B Mene
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, AURANGABAD.
Argument
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Argument |
| 06-02-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 23-12-2025 | Respondent Evidence |
| 03-12-2025 | Respondent Evidence |
| 15-11-2025 | Respondent Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary The Industrial Court at Aurangabad partly allowed the interim relief application filed by complainant Raju Murlidhar Tupe under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The court directed the respondent (CIDCO) to not terminate or discontinue the complainant's services until the final decision of the complaint, finding a prima facie case of unfair labour practices and that balance of convenience favors protecting the employee's employment during the pendency of proceedings. Questions regarding salary, pay-scale, and consequential benefits are reserved for final decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Industrial Court at Aurangabad partly allowed the interim relief application filed by complainant Raju Murlidhar Tupe under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The court directed the respondent (CIDCO) to not terminate or discontinue the complainant's services until the final decision of the complaint, finding a prima facie case of unfair labour practices and that balance of convenience favors protecting the employee's employment during the pendency of proceedings. Questions regarding salary, pay-scale, and consequential benefits are reserved for final decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts