Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 APRIL 2025

Implementing Court Orders

Counselence
Counselence
Contributor
Explore more from Counselence

The Bombay High Court on March 23, 2025 in the Arun Firodiya case, opined that persons in positions of control and supervision over an industrial establishment's affairs are obligated to implement court orders even pending their appeal.

IndiaEmployment and HR

The Bombay High Court (HC) on March 23, 2025 in the Arun Firodiya case,1 opined that persons in positions of control and supervision over an industrial establishment's affairs are obligated to implement court orders even pending their appeal.

Brief Facts

Ramrao Hanumantrao Kandekar (Kandekar), an employee of Kinetic Engineering Limited (KEL), was dismissed from service in 1998 following a domestic inquiry. Aggrieved by his dismissal, Kandekar complained before the Labour Court, Ahmednagar (LC).

In 2019, LC ruled in favour of Kandekar, declaring the dismissal as 'unfair labour practice' under various items of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU-PULP Act). It set aside the dismissal order and directed Kandekar to be taken back in service with full back wages and consequential benefits until his superannuation.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from