Bhiva Narayan Dhakate vs The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mumbai and 02 Advocate - C.K.Bade — 15/2020
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act Section 28. Status: Respondent Evidence. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.
Complaint
CNR: MHIC360000502020
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
Filing Number
100/2020
Filing Date
06-08-2020
Registration No
15/2020
Registration Date
06-08-2020
Court
Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara
Judge
1-MEMBER
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhiva Narayan Dhakate
Adv. S.E.Reghorte
Respondent(s)
The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mumbai and 02 Advocate - C.K.Bade
The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Finance Department, Mumbai
Zilla Parishad, Gondia, through its Chief Executive Officer, Gondia
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MEMBER
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Evidence
Cross Examination
Hearing below Exh._____
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 23-01-2026 | Hearing below Exh._____ |
Interim Orders
This document is a cross-examination transcript from an Industrial Court proceeding (COM 15/20) at Bhandara, dated 23/02/2026, involving a retired Assistant Account Officer disputing the recovery of excess promotional pay received for service in a Naxalite-affected area. The witness testified that benefits for naxalite posting continue post-retirement and challenged the legality of the excess amount deduction ordered by respondents. The cross-examination concluded with no re-examination, but no final order or judgment outcome is stated in this excerpt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document is a cross-examination transcript from an Industrial Court proceeding (COM 15/20) at Bhandara, dated 23/02/2026, involving a retired Assistant Account Officer disputing the recovery of excess promotional pay received for service in a Naxalite-affected area. The witness testified that benefits for naxalite posting continue post-retirement and challenged the legality of the excess amount deduction ordered by respondents. The cross-examination concluded with no re-examination, but no final order or judgment outcome is stated in this excerpt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts