Bhimrao Tukaram Gayakwad vs C.E.O., Zilla Parishad, Amravati and another Advocate - Y. S. Deshmukh — 30/2022
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28. Status: Cross Examination. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC270000612022
Next Hearing
01st April 2026
Filing Number
69/2022
Filing Date
07-04-2022
Registration No
30/2022
Registration Date
07-04-2022
Court
Industrial Court, Amravati
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhimrao Tukaram Gayakwad
Adv. D.B. Gawande
Respondent(s)
C.E.O., Zilla Parishad, Amravati and another Advocate - Y. S. Deshmukh
Executive Engineer, Works Divi.Z.P. Amravati
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 |
| 23-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 05-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 08-12-2025 | Cross Examination |
| 01-11-2025 | Cross Examination |
Interim Orders
The Industrial Court of Maharashtra (Amravati Bench) allowed the unfair labour practice complaint and stayed the suspension order dated 1.04.2022 against employee Bhimrao Tukaram Gayakwad until final disposal of the case. The court found the suspension order violated procedural requirements under the Maharashtra Civil Service Rules, as it failed to specify whether disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or pending, and the employee was not part of the preliminary enquiry that formed the basis for suspension. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Industrial Court of Maharashtra (Amravati Bench) allowed the unfair labour practice complaint and stayed the suspension order dated 1.04.2022 against employee Bhimrao Tukaram Gayakwad until final disposal of the case. The court found the suspension order violated procedural requirements under the Maharashtra Civil Service Rules, as it failed to specify whether disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or pending, and the employee was not part of the preliminary enquiry that formed the basis for suspension. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts