Rupesh Surendra Kokate and 1 vs Divisional Controller , S. T. Amravati and 1 Advocate - V.D. Tayade — 92/2023
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28,30(2). Status: Documents Issues. Next hearing: 13th April 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC270001372023
Next Hearing
13th April 2026
Filing Number
137/2023
Filing Date
18-08-2023
Registration No
92/2023
Registration Date
18-08-2023
Court
Industrial Court, Amravati
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rupesh Surendra Kokate and 1
Adv. D.B. Gawande
Respondent(s)
Divisional Controller , S. T. Amravati and 1 Advocate - V.D. Tayade
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.
Documents Issues
Documents Issues
Documents Issues
Documents Issues
Documents Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Documents Issues |
| 12-01-2026 | Documents Issues |
| 27-11-2025 | Documents Issues |
| 29-10-2025 | Documents Issues |
| 08-09-2025 | Documents Issues |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary The Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Amravati Bench) rejected the application filed by two MSRTC drivers (Rupesh Kokate and another) seeking relief under the MRTU & PULP Act on 21-09-2023. The court found that the complainants failed to establish a prima facie case of unfair labor practice, holding that they were legitimately appointed as "Driver cum Conductor (Junior)" positions as per the 2015 advertisement and Standing Orders, and thus could lawfully be assigned conductor duties. The court noted the complainants suppressed material facts and unjustifiably delayed raising objections for over 6 years. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary The Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Amravati Bench) rejected the application filed by two MSRTC drivers (Rupesh Kokate and another) seeking relief under the MRTU & PULP Act on 21-09-2023. The court found that the complainants failed to establish a prima facie case of unfair labor practice, holding that they were legitimately appointed as "Driver cum Conductor (Junior)" positions as per the 2015 advertisement and Standing Orders, and thus could lawfully be assigned conductor duties. The court noted the complainants suppressed material facts and unjustifiably delayed raising objections for over 6 years. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts