Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Indurkha and other vs Pralhad Totoba Pudke and other Advocate - T.S.Singade — 23/2025
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act Section 44. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 06th March 2026.
Revision ULP - Revn.AppULP
CNR: MHIC360001002025
Filing Number
136/2025
Filing Date
27-10-2025
Registration No
23/2025
Registration Date
27-10-2025
Court
Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara
Judge
1-MEMBER
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Indurkha and other
Adv. V.A.Bhoyar
Respondent(s)
Pralhad Totoba Pudke and other Advocate - T.S.Singade
Block Development OfficerPanchayat Samiti Bhandara
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MEMBER
Disposed
CITATION
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-03-2026 | CITATION |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 05-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Maharashtra Industrial Court set aside the Labour Court's decision that had ordered reinstatement of a Gram Rojgar Sevak (village worker) with 50% back wages, finding the lower court committed legal infirmities by not making the Gramsabha (village assembly) and the replacement employee as necessary parties to the case. The court held that since the Gramsabha alone has authority to appoint and terminate such positions under Government resolution 2011, it should have been included as a party, and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication after adding these necessary parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Maharashtra Industrial Court set aside the Labour Court's decision that had ordered reinstatement of a Gram Rojgar Sevak (village worker) with 50% back wages, finding the lower court committed legal infirmities by not making the Gramsabha (village assembly) and the replacement employee as necessary parties to the case. The court held that since the Gramsabha alone has authority to appoint and terminate such positions under Government resolution 2011, it should have been included as a party, and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication after adding these necessary parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts