Jitendra Jayant Deshpande vs MSRTC and ors 2 Advocate - Adv Shubhada Mokal — 2/2021
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act Section 28. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
Comp.ULP - Complaint
CNR: MHLC060000072021
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
7/2021
Filing Date
05-01-2021
Registration No
2/2021
Registration Date
05-01-2021
Court
Labour Court, Mahad, Dist- Raigad
Judge
1-Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jitendra Jayant Deshpande
Adv. Vijay Mehta
Respondent(s)
MSRTC and ors 2 Advocate - Adv Shubhada Mokal
Divisional Traffic Suprintendent
Depot Manager
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judge
Evidence
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Cross Examination
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 20-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 06-02-2026 | Cross Examination |
| 23-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary The Labour Court at Mahad dismissed the Unfair Labour Practice (ULP) complaint filed by Jitendra Jayant Deshpande, an MSRTC conductor, challenging his misconduct findings. The court held that the internal departmental inquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with natural justice principles, and that the inquiry officer's findings—that the complainant misappropriated Rs. 4,000 by issuing unauthorized bus passes—were not perverse. The court rejected arguments regarding missing handwriting expert reports and unexamined witnesses, finding sufficient evidence on record to sustain the misconduct charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Labour Court at Mahad dismissed the Unfair Labour Practice (ULP) complaint filed by Jitendra Jayant Deshpande, an MSRTC conductor, challenging his misconduct findings. The court held that the internal departmental inquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with natural justice principles, and that the inquiry officer's findings—that the complainant misappropriated Rs. 4,000 by issuing unauthorized bus passes—were not perverse. The court rejected arguments regarding missing handwriting expert reports and unexamined witnesses, finding sufficient evidence on record to sustain the misconduct charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts