Smt. Ranjana Krushnat Patil vs M.S.R.T.C Kolhapur Advocate - V. S. Chavan — 5100009/2017
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28. Status: Respondent Evidence. Next hearing: 13th April 2026.
Comp. ULP - Complaint
CNR: MHLC090000512017
Next Hearing
13th April 2026
Filing Number
48/2017
Filing Date
02-02-2017
Registration No
5100009/2017
Registration Date
08-02-2017
Court
Labour Court, Kolhapur
Judge
2-Judge, Labour Court No. 2 Kolhapur.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Smt. Ranjana Krushnat Patil
Adv. D. S. Joshi
Respondent(s)
M.S.R.T.C Kolhapur Advocate - V. S. Chavan
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judge, Labour Court No. 2 Kolhapur.
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
Respondent Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 21-02-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 28-01-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 07-01-2026 | Respondent Evidence |
| 03-12-2025 | Respondent Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary The Second Labour Court at Kolhapur allowed the unfair labour practice complaint filed by Smt. Ranjana Krishnat Patil, a Traffic Controller with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The court found that the departmental inquiry against her violated principles of natural justice due to vague charges, an undated inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer playing a dual prosecutorial-judicial role, and ignoring witness admissions favorable to the complainant. The court declared the inquiry illegal and the Enquiry Officer's findings perverse, without supporting evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Second Labour Court at Kolhapur allowed the unfair labour practice complaint filed by Smt. Ranjana Krishnat Patil, a Traffic Controller with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The court found that the departmental inquiry against her violated principles of natural justice due to vague charges, an undated inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer playing a dual prosecutorial-judicial role, and ignoring witness admissions favorable to the complainant. The court declared the inquiry illegal and the Enquiry Officer's findings perverse, without supporting evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts