Sudhakar Rupaji Bhosale vs Divisional Controller MSRTC Buldana Advocate - Kashikar RM — 46/2025
Case under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 7(4). Status: Argument. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
Appln. PGA - PGA
CNR: MHLC280001462025
Filing Number
149/2025
Filing Date
30-Oct-2025
Registration No
46/2025
Registration Date
30-Oct-2025
Court
Labour Court,Buldhana
Judge
1-Judge, Labour Court
Last updated 26-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sudhakar Rupaji Bhosale
Adv. Smt. G. S. Gaikwad
Respondent(s)
-
1.Divisional Controller MSRTC Buldana Advocate - Kashikar RM
Case History
-
07-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
20-Mar-2026
Argument
Judge, Labour Court
-
06-Mar-2026
Argument
Judge, Labour Court
-
24-Feb-2026
Argument
Judge, Labour Court
-
13-Feb-2026
Argument
Judge, Labour Court
-
06-Feb-2026
Respondents Evidence
Judge, Labour Court
-
27-Jan-2026
EvidenceView PDF
The petition of Sudhakar Rupaji Bhosale (age 59, retired) challenging his termination from service with the Maharashtra Mandal is dismissed. The court found that the petitioner failed to submit the required nomination letter and that the respondent is not obligated to reinstate him or provide any relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
27-Jan-2026
Cross Examination
Judge, Labour Court
-
20-Jan-2026
Order below Exh---View PDF
-
20-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judge, Labour Court
-
07-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judge, Labour Court
-
24-Dec-2025
Issues
Judge, Labour Court
-
10-Dec-2025
Written Statement
Judge, Labour Court
-
06-Dec-2025
Written Statement
Judge, Labour Court
-
20-Nov-2025
Written Statement
Judge, Labour Court
-
14-Nov-2025
Report
Judge, Labour Court
-
04-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 46/2025
The petition of Sudhakar Rupaji Bhosale (age 59, retired) challenging his termination from service with the Maharashtra Mandal is dismissed. The court found that the petitioner failed to submit the required nomination letter and that the respondent is not obligated to reinstate him or provide any relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts