Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 25664
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
The Vice President, Human Resources, Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner of Labour (Minimum wages) Appellate Authority Under Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishment Act – Respondent
W.P.No.517 of 2025 | T.N.S.E II/7/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Gupta Ravi, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Manohar Gupta
For the Respondents:Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, Government Advocate for R1, Mr.N.Suresh, for R2
Termination invalid without enquiry and proper service; blocking access constitutes illegal oral termination breaching dignity.
Headnote:The appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, particularly Section 41 and Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 1948, adjudicated an appeal against termination of service. Essential facts involved an employee with 18 years of service who received a show cause notice for poor performance, went on leave on HR advice, found access blocked upon return, and received no formal termination notice or enquiry. The authority found termination illegal due to lack of enquiry and proper service of dismissal order. The High Court upheld these determinations, rejecting management's abandonment claim. Key issue framed: whether employee's claim to set aside oral termination on 30.05.2018 and seek reinstatement could be accepted. Ratio: Termination invalid without enquiry, proof of service via registered post, or personal delivery; blocking access via smart card constitutes undignified oral termination, breaching fair procedure and human rights protections; management's inconsistent charges and unproven communications failed to establish authorised abandonment. The Writ Petition challenging the appellate authority's award dated 03.10.2024 was dismissed, no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employee's employment history, show cause, leave, and appeal against termination. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. management's notices and abandonment claim. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. appellate authority's evidence review and findings. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. rival counsels' submissions on termination validity. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court analysis of service proof and procedural lapses. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. dignity breach and petition dismissal. (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned award dated
03.10.2024 issued in T.N.S.E II/7/2018 by the 1 respondent herein, under the st Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 (in short ‘the Act’).
2. The factual background in which the Writ Petition arises is that the 2 nd respondent, viz., Mr.K.N.Naresh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the employee’), filed an appeal under Section 41 of the Act before the 1 respondent. According st to the claim petition, the employee was appointed with the petitioner–company, viz., Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the management’), with effect from 04.01.2000. Thereafter, the employee was duly discharging his duties, was granted promotions, and was appreciated for his performance exceeding expectations. While so, a show cause notice was issued to the employee on 18.04.2018, alleging that his performance level was low, amounting to misconduct, and questioning why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. The employee submitted his reply on 23.04.2018, explaining that the charge is baseless and vindictive, and that for the past two years, roles suitable for the employee were not assigned. He also stated that he performed the assigned work to the best of his ability. Under these circumstances, the Human Resources Talent Manager called upon the employee, and, on his advice, the employee went on leave.
3. When he returned from leave in the last week of May 2018, he found that his access ID to enter the office premises was blocked. A sum of Rs.5 Lakhs was also credited to his account. Subsequently, the employee issued a legal notice on 14.07.2018. No enquiry was conducted regarding the charges, and therefore, his termination with effect from 30.05.2018, without any written communication, is illegal. Thus, the employee prayed that the non-employment be declared as ‘without reasonable cause’ and that the management be directed to reinstate him into service in the same position, with all continuity of service and back wages.
4. Initially, the appeal was contested on the ground that if the oral termination was on 30.05.2018, it was not filed within 30 days. Following a preliminary objection, an application for condonation of delay was filed and subsequently allowed. The Management challenged this by way of a Writ Petition, but then the appeal was taken up for hearing on merits.
5. The Management contended that on 18.04.2018, through a show cause notice cum charge memo, the employee was informed about his poor performance and low ranking over the previous two years, and was asked to show cause regarding the same. Instead of responding, the employee stopped reporting to work from 19.04.2018, claiming he was on leave. After approximately a month, on 17.05.2018, a communication was sent highlighting his absence from 19.04.2018 without prior notice, noting that this absence was considered unauthorised and that his attendance card would be deactivated unless he reports back to work. However, the communication was returned with an endorsement ‘shifted’.
6. Again, on 18.05.2018, another communication was sent to the employee, instructing him to report for work immediately and warning of disciplinary action. The said letter also returned ‘undelivered’. Yet another communication dated 23.05.2018 was sent to the employee, directing him to report for work on or before 06.06.2018 and to offer a satisfactory explanation for his absence; failing which, appropriate action would be taken for his unauthori
