Sunil Indrawane vs Regional Manager M.S.R.T.C. Amravati and 2 Advocate - V.D. Tayade — 5000110/2015
Case under --- Section 28Rw.itemNos.5,6and9ofSch-IV. Status: Respondent Evidence. Next hearing: 07th May 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC270002032015
Next Hearing
07th May 2026
Filing Number
5000214/2015
Filing Date
29-10-2015
Registration No
5000110/2015
Registration Date
29-10-2015
Court
Industrial Court, Amravati
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sunil Indrawane
Adv. S. M. Rathi
Respondent(s)
Regional Manager M.S.R.T.C. Amravati and 2 Advocate - V.D. Tayade
Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C,Amravati
Depot Manager, M.S.R.T.C,
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 06-01-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 19-11-2025 | Respondent Evidence |
| 23-09-2025 | Respondent Evidence |
| 02-08-2025 | Respondent Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary The Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Amravati Bench) allowed the interim relief application filed by Sunil Babaraoji Indrawane under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The court directed Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation not to terminate the applicant's services without following due process of law until disposal of the main complaint for regularisation. The court found that the applicant, working as a cleaner for over two decades, had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience favoured granting interim protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Amravati Bench) allowed the interim relief application filed by Sunil Babaraoji Indrawane under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The court directed Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation not to terminate the applicant's services without following due process of law until disposal of the main complaint for regularisation. The court found that the applicant, working as a cleaner for over two decades, had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience favoured granting interim protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts