Shankar Mahadev Takmare vs Indo Count Industries Ltd., Advocate - D. S. Joshi — 19/2024
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28. Status: Say. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.
Comp. ULP - Complaint
CNR: MHLC090002152024
Next Hearing
24th April 2026
Filing Number
226/2024
Filing Date
11-06-2024
Registration No
19/2024
Registration Date
11-06-2024
Court
Labour Court, Kolhapur
Judge
2-Judge, Labour Court No. 2 Kolhapur.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shankar Mahadev Takmare
Adv. R. D. Patil
Respondent(s)
Indo Count Industries Ltd., Advocate - D. S. Joshi
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judge, Labour Court No. 2 Kolhapur.
Say
Say
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Say |
| 13-03-2026 | Say |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 10-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The Second Labour Court at Kolhapur allowed the interim relief application filed by complainant Shankar Mahadev Takmare against Indo Count Industries Ltd. The court found a prima facie case of unfair labour practices and ruled that the respondent is temporarily restrained from superannuating the complainant until he attains 60 years of age without following due process of law. The court held that Model Standing Orders (prescribing retirement age of 60 years) apply since no certified Standing Orders exist, making the company's practice of forcing retirement at 58 years unlawful. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The Second Labour Court at Kolhapur allowed the interim relief application filed by complainant Shankar Mahadev Takmare against Indo Count Industries Ltd. The court found a prima facie case of unfair labour practices and ruled that the respondent is temporarily restrained from superannuating the complainant until he attains 60 years of age without following due process of law. The court held that Model Standing Orders (prescribing retirement age of 60 years) apply since no certified Standing Orders exist, making the company's practice of forcing retirement at 58 years unlawful. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts