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

Case disposed

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

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act Section 44

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

06-03-2026

Disposed

05-03-2026

CITATION

25-02-2026

Arguments

12-02-2026

Arguments

05-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

06-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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

28-11-2025
Order on T.I.
casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case