Prashant Suryabhan Madame vs C.E.O. Z. P. Bhandara and 01. Advocate - Ravibhushan Bhusari — 22/2023
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act Section 28,30. Status: Further Evidence. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHLC360001482023
Filing Number
152/2023
Filing Date
08-Nov-2023
Registration No
22/2023
Registration Date
08-Nov-2023
Court
Labour Court, Bhandara
Judge
1-Judge
Last updated 26-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Prashant Suryabhan Madame
Adv. Vinay Ashok Bhoyar
Respondent(s)
-
1.C.E.O. Z. P. Bhandara and 01. Advocate - Ravibhushan Bhusari
-
2.Deputy Chief Ex. Officer, Z.P. Bhandara.
Adv. Ravibhushan Bhusari
Case History
-
27-Mar-2026
Next hearingPending
-
13-Mar-2026
Further Evidence
Judge
-
06-Mar-2026
Further Evidence
Judge
-
20-Feb-2026
Cross Examination
Judge
-
06-Feb-2026
Cross Examination
Judge
-
23-Jan-2026
Cross Examination
Judge
-
16-Jan-2026
Further Chief
Judge
-
12-Jan-2026
Further Chief
Judge
-
09-Jan-2026
Respondent Evidence
Judge
-
02-Jan-2026
Hearing On Exh.
Judge
-
30-Dec-2025
Arguments
Judge
-
22-Dec-2025
Arguments
Judge
-
19-Dec-2025
Arguments
Judge
-
16-Dec-2025
Arguments
Judge
-
12-Dec-2025
Arguments
Judge
-
05-Dec-2025
Arguments
Judge
-
28-Nov-2025
Arguments
Judge
-
21-Nov-2025
Non Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
14-Nov-2025
Non Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
17-Oct-2025
Non Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
03-Oct-2025
Non Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
12-Sep-2025
Further Hearing
Judge
-
29-Aug-2025
Further Evidence
Judge
-
08-Aug-2025
Cross Examination
Judge
-
25-Jul-2025
Cross Examination
Judge
-
18-Jul-2025
Cross Examination
Judge
-
27-Jun-2025
Cross Examination
Judge
-
16-Jun-2025
Further Chief
Judge
-
06-Jun-2025
Further Chief
Judge
-
05-May-2025
Further Chief
Judge
-
15-Apr-2025
Further Chief
Judge
-
07-Apr-2025
Further Chief
Judge
-
20-Mar-2025
Further Chief
Judge
-
07-Mar-2025
Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
13-Feb-2025
Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
17-Jan-2025
Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
13-Dec-2024
Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
22-Nov-2024
Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
15-Nov-2024
Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
27-Sep-2024
Awaiting R and P
Judge
-
30-Aug-2024
Awaiting R and P
Judge
-
06-Aug-2024
Awaiting R and P
Judge
-
12-Jul-2024
Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
13-Jun-2024
Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
25-Apr-2024
Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
08-Apr-2024
Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
04-Mar-2024
Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
15-Feb-2024
Applicant Evidence
Judge
-
12-Jan-2024
Order below Exh. 2View PDF
Case Summary Labour Court, Bhandara - Complaint (ULPA) No. 22 of 2023 Order Date: 12-01-2024 The application for interim relief filed by Prashant Madame, a Water Quality Expert, seeking reinstatement pending final disposal of his unfair labour practice complaint has been rejected. The court found no prima facie case, no balance of convenience, and no irreparable loss in favour of the complainant, noting that his contract-based appointment contained explicit conditions permitting automatic termination after 11 months and that his conduct in issuing a suicide letter was objectionable under the appointment conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Jan-2024
Issues
Judge
-
10-Jan-2024
Further Hearing
Judge
-
06-Jan-2024
Further Hearing
Judge
-
05-Jan-2024
Further Hearing
Judge
-
02-Jan-2024
Hearing On Exh.
Judge
-
22-Dec-2023
Hearing On Exh.
Judge
-
19-Dec-2023
Hearing On Exh.
Judge
-
16-Dec-2023
Hearing On Exh.
Judge
-
14-Dec-2023
Amendment
Judge
-
08-Dec-2023
Amendment
Judge
-
01-Dec-2023
Amendment
Judge
-
23-Nov-2023
Amendment
Judge
-
08-Nov-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Nov-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 22/2023
Case Summary Labour Court, Bhandara - Complaint (ULPA) No. 22 of 2023 Order Date: 12-01-2024 The application for interim relief filed by Prashant Madame, a Water Quality Expert, seeking reinstatement pending final disposal of his unfair labour practice complaint has been rejected. The court found no prima facie case, no balance of convenience, and no irreparable loss in favour of the complainant, noting that his contract-based appointment contained explicit conditions permitting automatic termination after 11 months and that his conduct in issuing a suicide letter was objectionable under the appointment conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts