Moreshwar Anandrao Nikhare vs M.S.R.T.C. Chandrapur Advocate - Patil Bhaskar Mansaram — 12/2023
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 Section 28. Status: Respondents Evidence. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.
Comp. ULP
CNR: MHIC340000122023
Filing Number
12/2023
Filing Date
02-Feb-2023
Registration No
12/2023
Registration Date
02-Feb-2023
Court
Industrial Court,Chandrapur
Judge
1-Member
Last updated 26-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Moreshwar Anandrao Nikhare
Adv. Shri V.M. Shikare, Representative
Respondent(s)
-
1.M.S.R.T.C. Chandrapur Advocate - Patil Bhaskar Mansaram
-
2.The Assistt.Mechanical Engineer ,M.S.R.T.C.Workshop Tukum Chandrpaur
Adv. Patil Bhaskar Mansaram
Case History
-
08-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Order on Pre IssueView PDF
Case Summary The Industrial Court, Chandrapur answered two preliminary issues in the negative: finding that the domestic enquiry procedure against Assistant Artisan Moreshwar Nikhare was neither legal, proper, nor just, and that the enquiry officer's findings were perverse. The court identified critical procedural violations, including the enquiry officer acting simultaneously as investigator, prosecutor, and judge; failure to examine vital eyewitnesses; and reliance on inadmissible hearsay evidence from the reporting officer. The respondent M.S.R.T.C. Chandrapur was granted liberty to reprove the charges against the complainant before the court through fresh evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Mar-2026
Respondents Evidence
Member
-
04-Mar-2026
Order
Member
-
18-Feb-2026
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
Member
-
28-Jan-2026
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
Member
-
18-Dec-2025
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
Member
-
28-Oct-2025
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
Member
-
01-Oct-2025
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
Member
-
11-Sep-2025
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
Member
-
13-Aug-2025
Evidence
Member
-
30-Jul-2025
Evidence
Member
-
02-Jul-2025
Evidence
Member
-
20-Jun-2025
Evidence
Member
-
12-Jun-2025
Evidence
Member
-
05-May-2025
Evidence
Member
-
24-Apr-2025
Evidence
Member
-
16-Apr-2025
Evidence
Member
-
02-Apr-2025
Evidence
Member
-
15-Mar-2025
Evidence
Member
-
28-Feb-2025
Evidence
Member
-
13-Feb-2025
Evidence
Member
-
06-Feb-2025
Evidence
Member
-
24-Jan-2025
Evidence
Member
-
16-Jan-2025
Evidence
Member
-
19-Dec-2024
Evidence
Member
-
04-Dec-2024
Issues
Member
-
21-Nov-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
06-Nov-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
23-Oct-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
04-Oct-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
21-Sep-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
03-Sep-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
27-Jul-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
18-Jul-2024
lok Adalat
Member
-
27-Jun-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
09-May-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
18-Apr-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
26-Mar-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
26-Feb-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
29-Jan-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
01-Jan-2024
Written Statement
Member
-
30-Nov-2023
Written Statement
Member
-
27-Oct-2023
Written Statement
Member
-
28-Sep-2023
Written Statement
Member
-
09-Sep-2023
Written Statement
Member
-
31-Aug-2023
lok Adalat
Member
-
27-Jul-2023
Written Statement
Member
-
30-Jun-2023
Written Statement
Member
-
04-May-2023
Written Statement
Member
-
28-Mar-2023
Written Statement
Member
-
24-Feb-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Feb-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 12/2023
Case Summary The Industrial Court, Chandrapur answered two preliminary issues in the negative: finding that the domestic enquiry procedure against Assistant Artisan Moreshwar Nikhare was neither legal, proper, nor just, and that the enquiry officer's findings were perverse. The court identified critical procedural violations, including the enquiry officer acting simultaneously as investigator, prosecutor, and judge; failure to examine vital eyewitnesses; and reliance on inadmissible hearsay evidence from the reporting officer. The respondent M.S.R.T.C. Chandrapur was granted liberty to reprove the charges against the complainant before the court through fresh evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts