Mr Shailesh Tiwari vs M/s uttam Galva Steels Limited and ors — 5/2023
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act Section 28. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
Comp.ULP - Complaint
CNR: MHLC060000552023
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
55/2023
Filing Date
04-05-2023
Registration No
5/2023
Registration Date
04-05-2023
Court
Labour Court, Mahad, Dist- Raigad
Judge
1-Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mr Shailesh Tiwari
Adv. Adv Shruti Chaudhari
Respondent(s)
M/s uttam Galva Steels Limited and ors
Mrs Shweta Kochar
Mukund Jagirdar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judge
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Written Statement |
| 17-02-2026 | Written Statement |
| 16-01-2026 | Written Statement |
| 12-12-2025 | Written Statement |
| 31-10-2025 | Written Statement |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Labour Court at Mahad rejected an interim relief application by Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, a steno secretary employed by M/s Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. The court found that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case that his resignation on 09/03/2023 was obtained forcefully, noting that the company accepted it immediately and he raised no objection for nearly a month. The court ruled that granting reinstatement as interim relief would constitute final relief, which is impermissible at the interim stage, and determined that the burden lies on the complainant to prove coercion through proper evidence at the main hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Labour Court at Mahad rejected an interim relief application by Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, a steno secretary employed by M/s Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. The court found that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case that his resignation on 09/03/2023 was obtained forcefully, noting that the company accepted it immediately and he raised no objection for nearly a month. The court ruled that granting reinstatement as interim relief would constitute final relief, which is impermissible at the interim stage, and determined that the burden lies on the complainant to prove coercion through proper evidence at the main hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts