Pradip Vyenkatesh Yenarkar vs The Chandrapur District Central Co operative Bank Ltd Civil Line Chandrapur Advocate - Labhe Ajit Laxmanrao — 5/2021
Case under Industrial Disput Act, 1947 Section 33. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 06th March 2026.
Appln.IDA
CNR: MHLC340000572021
Filing Number
62/2021
Filing Date
01-04-2021
Registration No
5/2021
Registration Date
01-04-2021
Court
Labour Court,Chandrapur
Judge
1-Judge,Labour Court, Chandrapur
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pradip Vyenkatesh Yenarkar
Adv. Khelkar Wasudeo Mahadeo
Respondent(s)
The Chandrapur District Central Co operative Bank Ltd Civil Line Chandrapur Advocate - Labhe Ajit Laxmanrao
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judge,Labour Court, Chandrapur
Disposed
Argument
Argument
Argument
Argument
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-02-2026 | Argument |
| 29-01-2026 | Argument |
| 12-01-2026 | Argument |
| 22-12-2025 | Argument |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Labour Court, Chandrapur partly allowed the application and directed Chandrapur District Central Co-operative Bank to pay retired employee Pradip Vyenkatesh Yenarkar Rs. 6,62,128 (for 8 months of work during leave period) plus 6% simple interest per annum from the application filing date until realization. The court found the bank's conduct constituted unfair labour practice as it allowed him to work during leave without clear restrictions but later refused payment; however, the court reduced the claimed 12% interest to 6% considering the circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Labour Court, Chandrapur partly allowed the application and directed Chandrapur District Central Co-operative Bank to pay retired employee Pradip Vyenkatesh Yenarkar Rs. 6,62,128 (for 8 months of work during leave period) plus 6% simple interest per annum from the application filing date until realization. The court found the bank's conduct constituted unfair labour practice as it allowed him to work during leave without clear restrictions but later refused payment; however, the court reduced the claimed 12% interest to 6% considering the circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts