Shailendra Ramteke vs Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C, Amravati and 1 Advocate - V.D. Tayade — 14/2018
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28. Status: Hearing on Preliminary Issues. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.
Comp. ULP - Complaint
CNR: MHLC270000552018
Next Hearing
28th April 2026
Filing Number
55/2018
Filing Date
24-04-2018
Registration No
14/2018
Registration Date
24-04-2018
Court
Labour Court, Amravati
Judge
1-Judge, Labour Court
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shailendra Ramteke
Adv. D.M. Shrimali
Respondent(s)
Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C, Amravati and 1 Advocate - V.D. Tayade
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judge, Labour Court
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
Hearing on Preliminary Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing on Preliminary Issues |
| 31-01-2026 | Hearing on Preliminary Issues |
| 17-11-2025 | Hearing on Preliminary Issues |
| 22-09-2025 | Hearing on Preliminary Issues |
| 18-08-2025 | Hearing on Preliminary Issues |
Interim Orders
Summary The Labour Court at Amravati allowed the employee's application and stayed the show cause notice of dismissal dated 20.2.2018 until final disposal of the main complaint. The court found that the dismissal notice was issued based on a cancelled circular and violated natural justice principles by not providing prior hearing or conducting inquiry. The court also held that the complainant established a prima facie case with balance of convenience in his favor, warranting protection against irreparable loss. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Labour Court at Amravati allowed the employee's application and stayed the show cause notice of dismissal dated 20.2.2018 until final disposal of the main complaint. The court found that the dismissal notice was issued based on a cancelled circular and violated natural justice principles by not providing prior hearing or conducting inquiry. The court also held that the complainant established a prima facie case with balance of convenience in his favor, warranting protection against irreparable loss. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts