Cross writ petitions by an employer and workman against a Labour Court award ordering reinstatement with 50% backwages after termination for refusing projects. The High Court upheld reinstatement but modified the award, denying backwages for the out-of-employment period and granting attendant benefits only for the remaining period.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P. Nos.2133 and 30140 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE R.N. MANJULA
W.P. Nos.2133 & 30140 of 2023 & W.M.P. Nos.2221, 10458 & 10459 of 2023
W.P. No.2133 of 2023:
The Management of Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Ramanujan I.T. Park, Taramani Chennai 600 113 having its registered office at No.5/535, Old Mahabalipuram Road Okkiyam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 600 097 represented by its Associate Director – Legal Petitioner vs. R. Senthil Kumar Respondent
W.P. No.30140 of 2023:
R. Senthil Kumar Petitioner
vs.
The Management Cognizant Technology Solutions (C.T.S.) Ramanujan I.T. Park Tharamani Chennai 600 113 Respondent
Prayer in W.P. No.2133 of 2023:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the award dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
W.P. Nos.2133 and 30140 of 2023
20.12.2022 passed in O.P. No.140 of 2019 by the III Additional Labour
Court, Chennai.
Prayer in W.P. No.30140 of 2023:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the award dated 20.12.2022 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in O.P. No.140 of 2019, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent Management to pay full backwages and other attendant benefits
to the petitioner from the date of dismissal, in addition to the reliefs already granted.
For petitioner in W.P. No.2133 of 2023 Mr. C. Manohar Gupta and respondent in W.P. No.30140 of 2023
For respondent in W.P. No.2133 of 2023 Ms. V. Porkodi and petitioner in W.P. No.30140 of 2023
COMMON ORDER
Since both the instant writ petitions have been filed challenging one
and the same award, viz ., award dated 20.12.2022 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai (for brevity “the Labour Court”), they are considered and decided by this common order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/11
W.P. Nos.2133 and 30140 of 2023
2.
of Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., W.P. No.30140 of 2023 has been filed by one of its workmen by name Senthilkumar.
workman and the Management will be adverted to as the petitioner and the respondent, respectively.
4.1 The petitioner was working with the respondent as a Tech Leader and he was engaged in various projects of the respondent. From September 2018 onwards, the petitioner's services could not be utilised as he was unable to fit himself into any of the projects executed by the respondent.
Hence, the petitioner was kept in corporate deployable pool for the period between 07.09.2018 to 25.02.2019 with full wages with an idea to engage him when a better project is taken up by the respondent.
3/11
W.P. Nos.2133 and 30140 of 2023
4.2 During the period between 07.09.2018 and 25.02.2019, the petitioner was offered with four projects, i.e., two in Kolkata, one in Pune and one in Coimbatore. The petitioner accepted only the Coimbatore project. However, when he expressed his acceptance, the opportunity was lost. As the petitioner was remaining idle without executing any work, but, by receiving full salary for more than five months, he was issued with a show cause notice dated 20.02.2019. In his reply dated 22.02.2019 to the said show cause notice, the petitioner stated that he was ready to relocate to any place in India or abroad even though he had requested earlier to allocate any project only in Chennai and that he was ready to get trained in any other technology as well.
4.3 As there was no project readily available for the respondent to be offered to the petitioner and also taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had, at the first instance, refused to accept the projects offered to him, the respondent framed charges against him for disobedience. The said charges having been proved, the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of termination from service vide order dated 25.02.2019.
4/11
W.P. Nos.2133 and 30140 of 2023
4.4 Theregainst, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute being O.P.No.140 of 2019 before the Labour Court.
4.5 The Labour Court, on consideration of the arguments advanced
on either side and also the oral and documentary evidence, vide award dated
20.12.2022, held that the termination of the petitioner is illegal and unjustifiable and ordered for his reinstatement into service with 50% backwages from the date of termination till the date of the award and directed the respondent to post him at any place in India or abroad. However, the petitioner was not ordered to be given any attendant benefit.
4.6 Aggrieved by the denial of 50% backwages and other attendant benefits, the petitioner has filed W.P. No.30140 of 2023 and challenging the award insofar as it relates to reinstatement of the petitioner and granting of 50% backwages to him, the respondent has filed W.P. No.2133 of 2023.
5/11
W.P. Nos.2133 and 30140 of 2023
6.
6/11
W.P. Nos.2133 and 30140 of 2023
8.
made by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice which is marked as Ex.W.9. In the said document, the petitioner has stated that he was ready to relocate to any place in India or abroad and if possible, he may be accommodated in any project in Chennai. He has further stated therein that he was also ready to get trained in any other technology. But, it is pertinent to
note that the said reply has been given by the petitioner only to the show cause notice issued to him and the fact remains that when four projects were offered to him, he did not readily accept them. After the outstation projects slipped out of the hands of the respondent, the petitioner had chosen to accept one project at Coimbatore. So, the petitioner was kept in the corporate deployable pool by the respondent in order to get a suitable project for him.
7/11
W.P. Nos.2133 and 30140 of 2023
termination. This important point was lost sight of by the Labour Court and the Labour Court has placed strong reliance on the statement of the petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice to construe that he was all along willing to undertake any project. Mere frequent email communications between the petitioner and the respondent are not sufficient unless the petitioner showed any active sign of engaging himself in any of the projects offered to him.
8/11
W.P. Nos.2133 and 30140 of 2023
had expressed his willingness to relocate to any place in India or abroad, would show that the petitioner deserves only an action/punishment in commensurate with his refusal at the first instance and not capital punishment, i.e., termination, which is grossly disproportionate to his act of disobedience. As the petitioner was settled in Chennai, he would have found it inconvenient to attend the outstation projects offered to him. Later, he got convinced himself and that could have been viewed with a little lenience by the respondent. However, that cannot be the only mitigating factor to reduce the seriousness of disobedience on the part of the petitioner.
circumstances of the case, it would suffice, had the Labour Court, in the interests of justice, allowed the industrial dispute to the limited extent of granting the relief of reinstatement alone. Further, as the petitioner was drawing salary for over five months without executing any work and also refused to take up the projects instantly when they were offered to him, besides refusing to attend ADP/CDP orientation sessions, the Labour Court could have viewed the matter seriously for denying the backwages.
9/11
W.P. Nos.2133 and 30140 of 2023
With the aforesaid modification of the award of the Labour Court, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. Costs made easy. Connected W.M.Ps. stand closed.
23.09.2024
cad
10/11
W.P. Nos.2133 and 30140 of 2023
R.N. MANJULA, J.
cad
Common order in W.P. Nos.2133 and 30140 of 2023
23.09.2024
11/11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination of a workman who refused outstation projects was justified despite absence of prior approval under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act.
Whether the workman was entitled to backwages and attendant benefits on reinstatement.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
The Management of Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.
R. Senthil Kumar
R.N. Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
