Rajendra Ramkrishna Metkar vs Chief Executive Officer Z. P. Amravati Advocate - D. S. Sinkar — 5000091/2013
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28R/w.itemNo.9ofSch-IV. Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC270000092013
Next Hearing
24th April 2026
Filing Number
5000091/2013
Filing Date
22-10-2013
Registration No
5000091/2013
Registration Date
22-10-2013
Court
Industrial Court, Amravati
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajendra Ramkrishna Metkar
Adv. D.B. Gawande
Respondent(s)
Chief Executive Officer Z. P. Amravati Advocate - D. S. Sinkar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 11-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 16-01-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 15-12-2025 | Cross Examination |
| 29-11-2025 | Cross Examination |
Interim Orders
Summary The Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Amravati Bench) held that the enquiry conducted against complainant Rajendra Ramkrishna Metkar by the Zilla Parishad was fair, proper, and followed natural justice principles, and that the enquiry officer's findings were not perverse. The court rejected the complainant's unfair labour practice allegations on preliminary issues, though permitted him to proceed with proving such claims if desired during the substantive hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Amravati Bench) held that the enquiry conducted against complainant Rajendra Ramkrishna Metkar by the Zilla Parishad was fair, proper, and followed natural justice principles, and that the enquiry officer's findings were not perverse. The court rejected the complainant's unfair labour practice allegations on preliminary issues, though permitted him to proceed with proving such claims if desired during the substantive hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts