Pradip Antaram Karanjekar vs M.S.R.T.C.,through its Divisional Controller, Bhandara and 01 Advocate - P. M. Nichakawade — 109/2019
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act Section 28. Status: Chief and cross of Respondent. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
Complaint
CNR: MHIC360002382019
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
238/2019
Filing Date
20-12-2019
Registration No
109/2019
Registration Date
20-12-2019
Court
Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara
Judge
1-MEMBER
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pradip Antaram Karanjekar
Adv. S.E.Reghorte
Respondent(s)
M.S.R.T.C.,through its Divisional Controller, Bhandara and 01 Advocate - P. M. Nichakawade
M.S.R.T.C., through its Divisional Traffic Officer, Bhandara
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MEMBER
Chief and cross of Respondent
Chief and cross of Respondent
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Chief and cross of Respondent |
| 06-03-2026 | Chief and cross of Respondent |
| 20-02-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 06-02-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 23-01-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Bhandara Bench) - Complaint (ULP) No. 109/2019 The court declared that while the departmental enquiry against driver Pradip Antaram Karanjekar was fair and conducted according to natural justice principles, the enquiry officer's findings were perverse and not supported by adequate evidence. The officer withheld three annual increments based on allegations of abusing superiors and making threats, but the court found no specific abusive words or credible threat-to-kill evidence in the witness statements, with only interested witnesses examined and no corroboration from independent sources. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Bhandara Bench) - Complaint (ULP) No. 109/2019 The court declared that while the departmental enquiry against driver Pradip Antaram Karanjekar was fair and conducted according to natural justice principles, the enquiry officer's findings were perverse and not supported by adequate evidence. The officer withheld three annual increments based on allegations of abusing superiors and making threats, but the court found no specific abusive words or credible threat-to-kill evidence in the witness statements, with only interested witnesses examined and no corroboration from independent sources. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts