Manoj Jangluji Patre vs M.S.R.T.C.Gadchiroli 1 Advocate - Patil Bhaskar Mansaram — 35/2020
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 Section 28. Status: Chief of Respondent. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Comp. ULP
CNR: MHIC340000712020
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
84/2020
Filing Date
04-11-2020
Registration No
35/2020
Registration Date
04-11-2020
Court
Industrial Court,Chandrapur
Judge
1-Member
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Manoj Jangluji Patre
Adv. Wankhade Milind Manoharrao
Respondent(s)
M.S.R.T.C.Gadchiroli 1 Advocate - Patil Bhaskar Mansaram
MSRTC through Divisional Controller, Gadchiroli.
Adv. Patil Bhaskar Mansaram
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member
Chief of Respondent
Respondents Evidence
Respondents Evidence
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Chief of Respondent |
| 06-03-2026 | Respondents Evidence |
| 13-02-2026 | Respondents Evidence |
| 07-01-2026 | Hearing on Preliminary Issues |
| 02-01-2026 | Hearing on Preliminary Issues |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary The Industrial Court, Chandrapur found the domestic enquiry against bus conductor Manoj S/o. Jangluji Patre to be procedurally defective and biased, as the enquiry officer acted simultaneously as investigator and prosecutor without appointing a separate presenting officer, and vital witnesses were not examined. The court declared the enquiry officer's findings perverse due to inconsistent reasoning and failure to apply judicial mind, and set aside the punishment order reducing the complainant's pay by two stages. The respondent corporation has been granted liberty to reprove the charges before court through proper evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary The Industrial Court, Chandrapur found the domestic enquiry against bus conductor Manoj S/o. Jangluji Patre to be procedurally defective and biased, as the enquiry officer acted simultaneously as investigator and prosecutor without appointing a separate presenting officer, and vital witnesses were not examined. The court declared the enquiry officer's findings perverse due to inconsistent reasoning and failure to apply judicial mind, and set aside the punishment order reducing the complainant's pay by two stages. The respondent corporation has been granted liberty to reprove the charges before court through proper evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts