Shyam Indrawane vs Regional Manager M.S.R.T.C. Amravati and 2 Advocate - V.D. Tayade — 5000111/2015
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28R/w.itemNos.5,6and9ofSch-IV. Status: Respondent Evidence. Next hearing: 07th May 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC270002042015
Next Hearing
07th May 2026
Filing Number
5000215/2015
Filing Date
29-10-2015
Registration No
5000111/2015
Registration Date
29-10-2015
Court
Industrial Court, Amravati
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court, Amravati.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shyam 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
Depot Manager, M.S.R.T.C. Chandur Rly
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 Shyam Babaraoji Indrawane on 17.02.2018. 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 unfair labour practice complaint. The applicant, who had worked as a cleaner for over two decades, sought protection after filing a regularisation complaint, citing prior court orders that had reinstated him with service continuity. 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 Shyam Babaraoji Indrawane on 17.02.2018. 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 unfair labour practice complaint. The applicant, who had worked as a cleaner for over two decades, sought protection after filing a regularisation complaint, citing prior court orders that had reinstated him with service continuity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts