1

IN THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI.

Present: Thiru C. Kumarappan, B.Sc., B.L.,

Presiding Officer

Wednesday, the 8th day of June, 2022

I.D.No.34/2016

CNR NO.TNCH0E0000492016

Thirumalai Selvan Shanmugam,

C/o General Secretary,
Forum for I.T.Employees,
No.42/21, Mettu Street,
Vellachery,
Chennai 600 042. .. Petitioner

/vs/

Tata Consultancy Service Limited,

Rep. by the Vice President – Human Resources,
No.185, Lloyds Road,
Chennai 600 086. .. Respondent

This dispute coming on 10.5.2022 before me for final hearing in the

presence of M/s. D.Sujatha, counsel for the petitioner and M/s S.Ramasubramaniam

& Associates, counsel for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on

Digitally signed
by C
C KUMARAPPAN
KUMARAPPAN Date: 2022.06.10
15:58:32 +0530
 2

record and on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day,

this court delivered the following

AWARD

1. This is an application filed U/s 2 A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 as amended Act of 24 of 2010 to hold that the denial of employment to the

petitioner from 2.1.2015 is illegal, bad in law and to direct the respondent to reinstate

the petitioner with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

2. The brief averments in the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner submits that, he joined in the service of the respondent

company on 10.8.2006. At the time when he joined service, he was designated as an

Assistant System Engineer. Subsequently he was promoted as an I.T.Analyst and

then Assistant Consultant from 1.4.2013. The petitioner submits that he is a

workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as

his main duties and responsibilities are technical and clerical in nature. His job nature

is supporting and maintaining the Information Technology infrastructure environment

of the client’s organization, installing updates for the physical and business virtual

machines on a monthly basis, troubleshooting issues, monitoring the business virtual

machines at frequent intervals and make sure all the business virtual machines are

running and also installing software to business virtual and physical machines,

sending reports to clients on daily basis. The work of troubleshooting, installing

software and monitoring the environment is the result of a group effort by a team and

each member of the team has to handle various types of work to ensure on time
 3

delivery of results to the clients of the company. According to this petitioner, the

respondent is an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner submits that, he was working in Siruseri Office of

the respondent company. The petitioner further submits that, for his honest, sincere

and dedicated work and also after considering his work performance, he was given 3

consecutive awards in the form of certificates, during 2011-2012 and he also received

TCS Gems Award and he received Faculty Award two times and Smiles in the year

2014. The petitioner further submits that ‘C’ rating of the company refers to meeting

the expectations of the company. The petitioner initially secured ‘B’ rating in the first

year of his service. He submits that, though he had better performance, he was given

‘C’ band due to ‘bell curve’ policy. While so, the respondent terminated the service

of 25,000 workers, who are Assistant Consultants and above and recruited 55,000

people predominantly freshers. The very act of the respondent is purely a profit

driven. While so, in furtherance of mass retrenchment, the petitioner was terminated

from service with effect from 6.2.2015 vide termination order dated 2.1.2015. The

allegation that the termination was made based upon the performance of the

petitioner is false. The petitioner further submits that, he has been terminated

unjustifiably, that too, without following Section 25F of the I.D.Act. Hence, he

approached the Commissioner of Labour on 26.3.2015. Though the respondent filed

counter on 11.5.2015, the conciliation did not succeed. Hence, the petitioner filed the

present application directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity

of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

 4

3. The brief averments in the preliminary counter statement are as

follows:­

The respondent submits that, the petitioner is not a workman within the

meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act as he was Assistant Consultant and whose

functions are of supervisory in nature. TCS is one of the reputed and largest software

company and they further submit that, they have been recognized world over for best

human resource practices. In Tamilnadu, the respondent having offices at Chennai

and Coimbatore. They have been undertaking various projects in varied fields. In

order to deliver quality of service to the clients, they need best valuable resources. In

this context, the respondent carries out periodic review of their employees to ensure

their skills. Software project management is the art and science of planning and

leading software projects. The projects are of different types namely development

projects, maintenance projects and testing projects. Further, the software project

varies in scope, size and duration and they have also varied categories of employees.

During April 2013, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Consultant which is of

managerial cadre. The petitioner carried out supervisory/managerial role and was

involved in his project as an Assurance Advisory consultant. The Assistant

Consultants are expected to provide guidance to project managers of different

software projects on right strategy to be adopted for testing a software solution. The

petitioner was assigned the role of a lead assessor on 26 th September 2014 based on

his experience. As a lead assessor, the petitioner was expected to independently

 5

conduct reviews and assessments as stated above. He was expected to take junior

assessors along with him and coach them on the assessment process. The respondent

submits that, the petitioner was posted in a bench period for some time so as to enable

him to increase his capability. From January 2014 to June 2014, the petitioner was a

Test Manager. As a Testing Manager, he has to create test strategies, test plan, assign

test activities to the test engineers, review and monitor the progress, provide

suggestions and feed back to the team. Test Manager is directly responsible for

supervising 5 test engineers. Therefore the respondent submits that since the

petitioner is not come within the definition of a workman, he prays to dismiss the

instant application.

4. The brief averments in the additional counter statement are as

follows:­

(i) The additional counter statement has been filed in the year 2017 and it

appears that the same was filed to deny the petitioner’s averments. However most of

the averments are in the same context as in the preliminary statement, but has been

explained in different way. Therefore, shun of unnecessary pleadings, the relevant

pleadings which are necessary for the disposal of this case are stated as follows:-

(ii) They submit that, since the petitioner did not perform to the

expectations of the role requirements, he was released from the assignment on 15

June 2014. The respondent submits that the petitioner did not possess the technical

competencies nor people management skills. The petitioner was also given one
 6

month time prior to relieving him from service. The respondent denied the allegation

made in para 3 of the petition and reiterated their stand that the petitioner is a

Manager. They also submits that the award given to the petitioner does not confer

any manner of right on the petitioner. They have also disputed the mass retrenchment.

According to this respondent, the petitioner is not at all entitled to have any benefit

u/s 25F of the I.D.Act. The petitioner having agreed to the terms of employment, he

is not entitled to make allegations on the false pretext of being a workman. In the

additional written statement, they have denied the claim petition, parawise and

groundwise. They have also further prayed before this court that, in the unlikely

event of this court is taking the view that the employee is entitled to the relief as he

prayed, then, the respondent prays to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement,

and for his other entitlements. The respondent further submits that, the relationship

between the petitioner and the management has become strained and they have also

lost hope with the petitioner. Therefore it will not be in the interest of the

management to again reinstate this employee. Therefore this respondent prayed to

dismiss this application.

5. The points for consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioner is a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek reinstatement with

continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits?

3. To what relief the petitioner is entitled?

 7

6. On behalf of the petitioner, W.W.1 and W.W.2 were examined and

Exs.W1 to W.17 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, M.W.1 was examined

and Exs.M1 to M.24 were marked.

7. Point Nos. 1 to 3:

The learned petitioner counsel would contend that, he has been illegally

terminated, in pursuance of mass retrenchment, and that he being the Assistant

Consultant he was only doing skilled, technical and clerical work and that he could

only be termed as a “Workman” and that the mandatory condition provided u/s 25F

of the I.D.Act has not been followed by the respondent. Hence contended that, the

very termination becomes illegal, and hence prayed for reinstatement with back

wages, and continuity of service.

8. Per contra, the learned respondent counsel in his usual dexterity has

contended that, since the petitioner has been promoted to the managerial cadre, as

Assistant Consultant in the year 2013, this dispute is not maintainable. He would

further contend that, as the petitioner could not match with the expectations and skill

set required by the respondent, they were constrained to terminate the service of the

petitioner. He would further contend that, since the petitioner is the managerial level

officer, there is no necessity arises for the respondent to comply with the provisions

u/s 25F of the I.D.Act. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned respondent

counsel that the termination order is in accordance with law, and prayed to dismiss

this application.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

 8

10. Before we go into the length and width of the facts of this case, it is

imperative upon this court to understand the definition of a ‘Workman’. The same has

been defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D.Act. In the past, in many path breaking judgments,

the definition of ‘workman’ has been considered and ultimately in the Judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, having 6 Hon’ble Judges in the Bench, reported in

MANU/SC/0525/1994/HR - (H.R. Adyanthaya and Ors. Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd.

and Ors), laid down a ratio. Wherein, the Hon’ble court dealt all the previous

conflicting views and ultimately hold that, in order to bring a person within the

meaning of a ‘Workman’, it is not enough that he is coming under the exception

provided u/s 2(s) of the I.D.Act, but also he should carry on any one of the activity

provided in the main part of the Section, such as manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,

operational, clerical, for hire or reward.

11. Now with the above touch stone, we must analyse the facts of the

instant case. On perusal of the entire material, it is incumbent upon this court to

record that, the appointment letter and the promotion order does not contain the

clauses explaining the duties and responsibilities that had been assigned to the

petitioner. However, for the first time, in para 10 of the Counter Statement, the

respondent has listed out certain work with the caption that, “petitioner's

responsibilities include but not limited to following”. In this regard, when the

petitioner was cross examined, he has admitted as follows:-

"எததரரமனததரரர தரபரபதலர ததகரகலர சசயரயபரபடரடளரள பததலரரயதலர பதரத எணர

10 லர கறதபரபதடபரபடரடளரள lead assigner position கரக உணரடதன responsible
 9

வரதரசயதக bullet point லர கறதபரபதடபரபடரடளரளத. அததலர 2,5,6,7 தவதர

மறரற points களர சரதததனர.”

Therefore after excluding the bullet points 2,5,6,7, the remaining responsibilities as

admitted by the petitioner are as follows:-

• Building assessor pool by identifying right experienced people who are

interested in assessment career
• Evaluate the trained assessor’s on their ability to conduct audits and
assessment and provide feedback
• Advise of further training as necessary
• Lead assessors are also empowered to make recommendations towards
making changes that are necessary to improve the projects outcome
• Such recommendations include people changes, process changes and
choice of software tools used in the project
• Lead assessor is also expected to pro-actively review and check
whether such recommendations are implemented correctly, If not
satisfactory they are empowered to make decisions and further escalate
the non-complaint to senior management
• Lead assessor is also expected to review the details and contents
delivered by a software testing project and approve or reject the project’s
eligibility to be part of Assurance Advisory assessment, Lead assessor
decision will considered as final authority on this matter
• Lead assessor is expected to also provide advice and support needed
for other functions with-in company. Typical support that lead assessor
may need to provide are (1) Benchmark date based on assessment
conducted to demonstrate company’s ability to take up new projects in
similar area during sales cycle. (2) Key metrics and Performance
indicators during Manager reviews and provide an expert view on
quality on the project that was assessed. (3) Inputs for strategic and
tactical decisions at organizational level that needs process refinement
and changes in testing techniques based on industry trends.

12. It is pertinent to mention here that, from the above narration, what

emerges is, even according to the respondent, the petitioner had also other

responsibilities. But, to the reason best known to the respondent, they have not

thought fit, to plead the same. This court is of the firm opinion that the reason for not
 10

mentioning other responsibilities in the Counter Statement, is nothing but a

subterfuge, to camouflage the petitioner’s principal nature of duty.

13. There is also a different perspective to the above discussions. Here,

the respondent in their additional counter statement, while agreeing to the petitioner's

contention made in para 3 that, he is also the member of the group, the respondent

has given the following reply in para 10 of the additional counter statement. The

same is as follows:-

“10. Now reverting to the allegations……………… are false and

baseless. On the other hand from January 2014 to June 2014,
the petitioner was a Test Manager in respect of a test team
comprising of five software engineers, with varied levels of
experience. The petitioner routinely supervised, mentored and
reviewed the tasks that he assigned to his team members in his
capacity as test manager. As part of his role as the Test Manager,
the petitioner was assigning work to the test engineers in his team
and reviewing and managing their work. The performance and
output of his subordinates were periodically overseen by the
petitioner in his capacity as Test Manager. The..…...”

Therefore, admittedly even the alleged responsibilities mentioned supra would only

upon 5 software employees.

14. It is also pertinent to mention here that, while looking at the

semantics of the following phrases in the list of responsibilities such as “also

empowered, “also expected” and “also provided” would impliedly make those

responsibilities as incidental to some other principal duty assigned to the petitioner.

15. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the Judgment of our Hon’ble

Supreme Court reported in MANU/SC/3856/2006 (Anand Anand Regional Co-op.

Oil Seedsgrowers Union Ltd. vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah). Wherein it

 11

has been held that, even some supervisory work upon a small group of person will

not bring such work, within the exclusionary clause provided u/s.2(s) of the I.D. Act.

The fact involved in the reported case as per Para 6 of the Judgment is as follows:-

6. Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the Appellant took us through the records of the case and
submitted that having regard to his own admission in the
departmental proceedings that the Respondent was not only the
Headof the Department but also had been supervising the works
of nine assistants, the Tribunal committed an error in opining
that he was a workman. Strong reliance in thisbehalf has been
placed on Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd v. Presiding
Officer,Labour Court and Ors. MANU/SC/1721/1996 :
(1997)ILLJ569SC. It was contended thatin any view of the matter,
the Labour Court committed a manifest error in exceeding
itsjurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act as having regard to the
facts andcircumstances of this case it could not have interfered
with the quantum of punishment.

As a finding to the above facts. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 9 held as
follows:-

9. Supervision contemplates direction and control. While

determining the nature of the work performed by an employee, the
essence of the matter should call for consideration. An undue
importance need not be given for the designation of an employee,
or the name assigned to, the class to which he belongs. What is
needed to be asked is as to what are the primary duties he
performs. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that there
were some persons working under him whose work is required to
be supervised. Being in charge of the section alone and that too
it being a small one and relating to quality control would not
answer the test. The precise question came up for consideration
in Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. Workmen
MANU/SC/0306/1969 : (1969) II LLJ 670 SC wherein it was
held: The question, whether a person is employed in a supervisory
capacity or on clerical work, in our opinion, depends upon
whether the main and principal duties carried out by him are those
of a supervisory character, or of a nature carried out by a clerk. If
a person is mainly doing supervisory work, but,incidentally or for
a fraction of the time, also does some clerical work, it would have
 12

to be held that he is employed in supervisory capacity; and,

conversely, if the main work done is of clerical nature, the mere
fact that some supervisory duties are also carried out incidentally
or as a small fraction of the work done by him will not convert his
employment as a clerk into one in supervisory capacity....A person
indisputably carries on supervisory work if he has power of
control or supervision in regard to recruitment, promotion, etc.
The work involves exercise of fact and independence. Judging by
the said standard, we are of the opinion that the First Respondent
did not come within the purview of the exclusionary clause of the
definition of workman. Ananda Bazar Patrika (supra) was
followed by the court in a large number of cases.

(Emphasis supplied by this Court)

Therefore while applying the above ratio to the facts of this case, the petitioner

herein, being a Test Manager for a team comprising of 5 Software Engineers, will

not come within the exclusionary clause of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.

16. At this juncture, the learned respondent counsel would draw the

attention of this court about certain email correspondences and contented that, those

email correspondences are the clear proof to show that the petitioner’s principal duty

is managerial in nature. The above arguments necessitated this court to go into the

details of those documents, which have been marked before this court as Ex.M1 to

M.19. On close scrutiny of those documents, the documents Exs.M.1, M.3, M.5 and

M.6 and M.11 would only advance the case of the petitioner. What the petitioner

says is that, he was doing technical work namely audit work along with his juniors. In

order to understand his argument it is relevant to extract the e.mail communication

 13

of the above exhibits, for ready reference.

“In Ex.M1 - Please set up a meeting with Audit and compliance

Manager, so that we can finalize.

In Ex.M3 - Please let us know if we can proceed with the planned

audit this week as I am not sure if we will be able to show you the
relevant artefacts.

In Ex.M5 – We have only 1 testing project being executed from

Chennai (2 membr team), Anbarasu is the Lead. We might have to do
a frest TIARA assessment.

In Ex.M6 – Can you please ask the respective team, to liaise with me, so
that we can conduct the audit on priority basis.

In Ex.M11 – We are looking case study for Agile – Big Data Testing
projects in Nielsen.

Therefore the usage of word in all the above e.mails would only suggest a joint effort

of technical work and that this petitioner is also one among the person in the team,

may be, first among the equals.

17. Further, even M.W.1 during his cross examination has admitted as

follows:-

“ மனததரரர எதரதரன project லர ஈடபடரடதரரகளர எனரபத எனரனரடய

கணதனதரய பதரரதரத சசதலரலமடயமர அத சமரபநரதமதன ஆவணமர ததகரகலர
சசயரயவதலரரல…… மனததரரர எஙரகளரடய நதறவனதரததலர
சமனரசபதரரள தயதரதகரகமர பணதயதலர இரநரததரர எனரறதலர அவரர testing
பணதயதலர இரநரததரர……….. மனததரரர அவரகரக ஆயரவகரக வரமர
சமனரசபதரடரகரள அவரர ஆயரவ சசயரத அவறரரற reject சசயரய மடயமர.
சபததவதக மனததரரர எடகரகமர மடவ இறததயதக இரகரகமர. ……….. ஒர
சமனரசபதரளதலர உளரள பதரசரசரனகளர சமரபநரதமதக மனததரரர
பதரரகரகரவணரடமர. ……. சமனரசபதரளர தயதரதபரபததலர trial எனரறதலர ஆரமரப
கடரட பரதரசததரன ஆகமர. மனததரரர trial work லர இரநரததரர எனரறதலர அத
கணதனதரய பதரரதரதததனர சசதலரல மடயமர. …………… மனததரரர team
leader…… எஙரகளர நதறவனதரததலர அனபவமர வதயரநரத நபரரகளர
மறரறவரரகளதடமர அநரத அனபவதரரத பகதரரநரதசகதளரவதரரகளர. எஙரகளர
 14

கமரசபனதயதலர email மலமதகவமர ரநரடயதகவமர கரதரதகரகரள பகதரரநரத

சகதளரரவதமர. நதஙரகளர ததகரகலர சசயரத ஆவணஙரகளர மனததரரர அவரகரக
ககழர பணதபரதநரதவரரகளகரக சகதடதரத goals, instructions, assessments
ஆகதயரவகளதகமர. மனததரரர அவரகரக ககழர பணதபரதபவரரகளகரக
ரவரல சசயரயவதலரரல எனரறதலர தணரடகரகபரபடவகரரகளர எனரற
சசதலரலவதலரரல……... ”

Therefore the documents which relied by the respondent and also the admission made

by the respondent’s witness M.W.1 would explicitly prove that the principal nature of

the petitioner’s work is only a skilled technical work.

18. The yet another document, which according to the respondent would

clinch their case to prove that the petitioner is a Manager is Ex.M.13. The Ex.M.13

is the information given by one of the associate of the petitioner about her intention to

take leave. As rightly pointed out by the learned petitioner counsel, no leave was

sanctioned or recommended by the petitioner so as to arrive at a conclusion that the

petitioner has done managerial activity.

19. It is well settled principle of law that in the course of employment,

there is every possibility for a person to attend varied responsibilities. While doing

so, some of them could also come within the parameter of supervisory or managerial

function. But, the principal nature of duty alone would decide and define the nature

of work entrusted with the person. From the above discussion, this court can safely

arrive at a conclusion that the principal nature of duty undertaken by the petitioner

was skilled technical work, as that of the other workman of the petitioner group.

20. The yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the

respondent is that, the petitioner being a leader of the associate, the very nature of
 15

leading a team would only project his managerial nature of function. However, with

due respect, this court is not in a position to accept the above argument of the learned

respondent counsel. Because from the above referred e.mail correspondences, the

petitioner used to do his own personal skilled technical work and incidentally he was

also seeing others by way of coordination. Therefore, the incidental work of giving

advice, goals and sharing his views will not change the nature of his work.

21. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 922 Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution

Company of India Ltd. Vs. The Burma Shell Management Staff Association and

Ors., which Judgment has been followed in subsequent Supreme Court Judgment

held in H.R. Adyanthaya case (supra). The relevant portion of the above judgment

is as follows:-

25. The Company's witness in respect of the Fueling Superintendent

is Des Raj Bhatia who tried to indicate that the manual or clerical
work carried on by the Fueling Superintendent is incidental or in
emergent situations, while the Fueling Superintendent is employed
primarily to take over responsibility for all matters connected with
the fueling and oiling of aircraft with the use of oil disposers, fullers,
and/or hydrant fueling equipment. He compared the position of a
Fueling incidentally, he has also to be in charge of seeing that others,
whose work has to be coordinated with his, do their work properly.
The Superintendent to that of a playing captain of a hockey or
football team and says that, while he himself has to work along with
other members of the team, he is also required to assume over all
responsibility for all operations prior to, during and after the delivery
of fuel/oil to aircraft including the observance of a time schedule,
safety and quality control. The fact that a Fueling Superintendent is
the leader of the team which carries out the work of fueling, cannot
convert his work into that of a supervisory nature. In fact, the
admission that he is a member of the team implies that his principal
work would be to do his own personal manual work as such member
 16

and, was, therefore, correct in holding that a Fueling Superintendent

is not employed mainly or substantially to do supervisory work. On
the other hand, his duties are mainly manual. Exception (iv) does not,
therefore, apply to a Fueling Superintendent and, even though the
salary exceeds Rs. 500 per mensem, a Fueling Superintendent must
be held to be a workman.

Chemists :
26. On the question of the duties carried out by a Chemist, the
Association examined three witnesses. One of them is M.D. Daniel
who had once worked as a Chemist and is now Foreman (Chemicals).
The other two are A.N. Dalai and P.N. Marolia who are both working
as Chemists. They have given their qualifications and nature of work
done by them. There are, no doubt, Assistants who assist the
Chemists in the laboratory where their work is carried on; but all the
Chemists do their own work which is of technical nature. The
Chemists have to personally test the various products received, and
also test the products as they are altered in the installations at various
stages. All the tests are carried out by the Chemists personally and
there are only a few Assistants who do mere routine work in order to
assist the Chemists. The Chemists, no doubt, ensure that the
workmen assisting them do their work properly; but that small
amount of supervision is only incidental to their own technical work
of testing and giving the results of tests to the Company. Even the
Company's witness Harish Bhargava admitted that the Chemists do a
large part of the work themselves, though he added that the Chemists
do guide and direct the Analysts and Laboratory Attendant so as to
ensure that the work in the laboratory is performed efficiently and
properly. Even his evidence does not show that this guidance and
direction to the laboratory attendant and analysts is the principal or
substantial work for which a Chemist is employed. In fact, that work
is ancillary to the main work which is done by the Chemists
themselves. The decision of the Tribunal, consequently, in respect of
the Chemists, holding them to be employed on technical work and
not in supervisory capacity, must be upheld. They have rightly been
held to be workmen.

Therefore this court is of the firm opinion that since because the petitioner has been

doing some lead role along with his main duty, the same will not make the petitioner

as Manager rather the petitioner would come within the definition of ‘Workman’ as
 17

defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D.Act. Hence this court holds that, the petitioner is coming

within the definition of “workman” as defined u/s.2(s) of the I.D. Act.

22. Once this court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is a

Workman, the next point to be considered would be that, whether the termination is

valid or not. In this regard, the main objection put forth by the learned petitioner

counsel is that, the respondent has not complied with the twin condition as enunciated

u/s 25F of the I.D.Act, namely giving one month notice in writing or one month wage

in lieu of such notice and also retrenchment compensation as provided u/s 25F(b) of

I.D. Act. In this case, admittedly the petitioner was served with termination notice on

2.1.2015 and was relieved after a month on 6.2.2015. Therefore this court holds that

the respondent has given one month notice as provided u/s 25F(a) of the I.D.Act.

However, coming to the retrenchment compensation as provided u/s.25F(b) of the

I.D. Act, admittedly the same has not been provided to the petitioner. If that being

the case, by virtue of the non compliance, the termination order becomes illegal.

Therefore the same is liable to be set aside. As a concomitant the petitioner is entitled

to be reinstated.

23. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the argument of the learned

counsel for the respondent. The learned respondent counsel would put forth the

second line of argument that, in any case, if this court is not in agreement with their

case, prayed to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement as they lost hope with

the petitioner. However, this court is not in a position to accept the above argument.

Because, even according to their own admission and also through the documents
 18

produced by the petitioner, the petitioner was appreciated for his good work rendered

in the company, just few months prior to the order of termination. Therefore the

argument of the respondent counsel that they have lost hope with the petitioner is not

acceptable and has no basis. Therefore the prayer of the learned respondent counsel

that instead of reinstatement, the relief of compensation to be granted could not be

accepted at all. Thus, this court reiterates that, in view of the above detailed

discussion, the petitioner is entitled to have an order of reinstatement as prayed for.

In the result, this industrial dispute is allowed by setting aside the

termination order. Further, the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner with

continuity of service and to pay full back wages and all other attendant benefits from

the date of his termination of service till his date of reinstatement. There is no order

as to costs.

Dictated to the steno-typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8th day of June 2022.

Sd/- C.Kumarappan
Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Chennai.

List of witnesses examined

For the Workman:-

W.W.1 Mr. Thirumalai Selvan Shanmugam

W.W.2 Mrs. Parimala

 19

For the Management:

M.W.1 Mr. Gnanaprakash

List of exhibits marked:

For the Workman:

Ex.W.1 4.8.2006 Copy of relieving letter issued by HTC Global

Services (India) Private Ltd.

Ex.W.2 28.7.2005 Copy of letter of officer and terms of

employment

Ex.W.3 2.5.203 Copy of Order for promotion

Ex.W.4 – Copy of certificate for Appreciation and Awards

Ex.W.5 21.5.2011 Copy of letter sent by the management to the

petitioner

Ex.W.6 2.1.2015 Copy of termination order

Ex.W.7 6.2.2015 Copy of relieving order

Ex.W.8 10.10.2017 Copy of Registration certificate

Ex.W.9 23.1.2015 Copy of letter given by the Forum for IT

employees

Ex.W.10 – Copy of advertisement published in a magazine

Ex.W.11 – Copy of extract from a magazine

Ex.W.12 18.2.2015 Copy of letter sent by the management to the

Labour Officer-3

Ex.W.13 20.1.2015 Copy of letter sent by the management to

one Ms.Sasirekha Thangavel Natarajan

Ex.W.14 – Copy of extract from a magazine

 20

Ex.W.15 26.2.2016 Copy of proceedings of the Commissioner of

Labour

Ex.W.16 – Copy of extract from a magazine

Ex.W.17 – Copy of extract from a magazine

For the Management:-

Ex.M.1 30.1.2015 Copy of email

Ex.M.2 30.1.2015 Copy of email

Ex.M.3 9.2.2015 Copy of email

Ex.M.4 12.12.2014 Copy of email

Ex.M.5 27.11.2014 Copy of email

Ex.M.6 24.12.2014 Copy of email

Ex.M.7 7.5.2014 Copy of email

Ex.M.8 30.12.2014 Copy of email

Ex.M.9 6.11.2014 Copy of email

Ex.M.10 14.11.2014 Copy of email

Ex.M.11 18.11.2014 Copy of email

Ex.M.12 8.5.2014 Copy of email

Ex.M.13 12.9.2014 Copy of email

Ex.M14 3.3.2011 Copy of email

Ex.M.15 31.10.2011 Copy of email

Ex.M.16 4.1.2012 Copy of email

Ex.M.17 20.9.2011 Copy of email

 21

Ex.M.18 20.6.2011 Copy of email

Ex.M.19 1.4.2011 Copy of email

Ex.M.20 – Statement showing self assessment of employees

Ex.M.21 2.8.2021 Authorization letter

Ex.M.22 16.3.2015 Copy of statement showing full and final

settlement of the petitioner

Ex.M.23 5.3.2015 Copy of letter sent by the management to

the petitioner

Ex.M.24 – Copy of email correspondence between

employees

Sd/- C.Kumarappan
Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Chennai.
/True copy/