Prakash Dyandev Chavan vs G.M. Hindustan Sping. and wvg. Mills Ltd. Advocate - Todkar D.P — 100027/2012
Status: Argument. Next hearing: 15th April 2026.
Comp. ULP - Complaint
CNR: MHLC110000172012
Next Hearing
15th April 2026
Filing Number
100027/2012
Filing Date
13-07-2012
Registration No
100027/2012
Registration Date
13-07-2012
Court
Labour Court, Satara
Judge
1-Judge Labour Court Satara
Petitioner(s)
Prakash Dyandev Chavan
Adv. R. P. Jadhav
Respondent(s)
G.M. Hindustan Sping. and wvg. Mills Ltd. Advocate - Todkar D.P
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judge Labour Court Satara
Argument
Argument
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
Order on Exh._________
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Argument |
| 06-03-2026 | Argument |
| 27-01-2026 | Hearing on Preliminary Issues |
| 13-01-2026 | Hearing on Preliminary Issues |
| 02-01-2026 | Order on Exh._________ |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Labour Court, Satara rejected an amendment application filed by complainant Prakash Dnyandev Chavan after 13 years, finding it time-barred under Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, which prescribes a 90-day limitation period to challenge unfair labour practices. The court held that the complainant was aware of the termination order dated 13/07/2012 since 2012-2013 but delayed challenging it for 13 years, constituting an abuse of process. The court called for cooperation of both parties for early disposal of the original complaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Labour Court, Satara rejected an amendment application filed by complainant Prakash Dnyandev Chavan after 13 years, finding it time-barred under Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, which prescribes a 90-day limitation period to challenge unfair labour practices. The court held that the complainant was aware of the termination order dated 13/07/2012 since 2012-2013 but delayed challenging it for 13 years, constituting an abuse of process. The court called for cooperation of both parties for early disposal of the original complaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts