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.

Documents Issues Next hearing 13-Apr-2026 this date has passed

Complaint ULP

CNR: MHIC270001372023

Filing Number

137/2023

Filing Date

18-Aug-2023

Registration No

92/2023

Registration Date

18-Aug-2023

Court

Industrial Court, Amravati

Judge

1-Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28,30(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rupesh Surendra Kokate and 1

    Adv. D.B. Gawande

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Divisional Controller , S. T. Amravati and 1 Advocate - V.D. Tayade

Case History

  1. 13-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Documents Issues

    Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.

  3. 12-Jan-2026

    Documents Issues

    Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.

  4. 27-Nov-2025

    Documents Issues

    Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.

  5. 29-Oct-2025

    Documents Issues

    Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.

  6. 08-Sep-2025

    Documents Issues

    Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.

  7. 31-Jul-2025

    Documents Issues

    Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.

  8. 11-Jun-2025

    Documents Issues

    Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.

  9. 17-Mar-2025

    Documents Issues

    Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.

  10. 07-Jan-2025

    Documents Issues

    Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.

  11. 23-Oct-2024

    Documents Issues

    Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.

  12. 19-Aug-2024

    Documents Issues

    Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.

  13. 22-Jun-2024

    Documents Issues

    Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.

  14. 26-Apr-2024

    Documents Issues

    Member Industrial Court

  15. 27-Feb-2024

    Documents Issues

    Member Industrial Court

  16. 11-Jan-2024

    Documents Issues

    Member Industrial Court

  17. 09-Nov-2023

    Documents Issues

    Member Industrial Court

  18. 21-Sep-2023

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  19. 21-Sep-2023

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    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.

  20. 21-Sep-2023

    Documents Issues

    Member Industrial Court

  21. 15-Sep-2023

    Order below Exh.______

    Member Industrial Court

  22. 02-Sep-2023

    Order below Exh.______

    Member Industrial Court

  23. 30-Aug-2023

    Hearing on Interim Relief

    Member Industrial Court

  24. 23-Aug-2023

    Reply

    Member Industrial Court

  25. 18-Aug-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 18-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 92/2023

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case