Dismissed¶11

Praxair India Pvt. Ltd, v. a.Balasubramaniam

Madras HC17 Jul 2026WP/17465/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High School writ dismissed; termination without enquiry; no reason stated in termination letter dated 09.12.2017; performance improvement plan not an enquiry; principles of natural justice violated; charge memo, departmental enquiry and enquiry report absent per R.W.1 admission; retrenchment plea raised first time in writ petition rejected; Labour Court Kancheepuram award I.D.No.711 of 2018 dated 05.10.2023 upheld; re-employment with emoluments; unfair dismissal; industrial dispute; Article 226 certiorari; Praxair India Private Limited v. A.Balasubramaniam; K. Surender J.; senior engineer termination.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner-Management; the Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs, and the stay petition W.M.P.No.19257 of 2024 is consequently closed. ¶11

Praxair India Pvt. Ltd, Vs a.Balasubramaniam — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner-Management; the Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs, and the stay petition W.M.P.No.19257 of 2024 is consequently closed.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-Management conducted any enquiry before terminating the respondent-workman, and whether the termination without enquiry or opportunity to defend himself accorded with the principles of natural justice. +2 more

¶4

Court's answer

The termination letter dated 09.12.2017 gave no reason for the termination and, admittedly, no enquiry was conducted before the termination of the respondent-workman.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The Management's contention that its performance improvement plan amounted to an enquiry into the charges was not accepted, the Court recording that, admittedly, no enquiry was conducted before termination.

¶7

Key takeaways

Because the termination of the respondent-workman was not based on any enquiry and no opportunity of hearing was given to him to defend himself, the Labour Court rightly set aside the dismissal order and directed re-employment of the workman with emoluments.ratio¶10
The retrenchment ground introduced by the petitioner-Management for the first time in the Writ Petition cannot be entertained, since no such stand was taken before the Labour Court.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (K. Surender, J.), W.P.No.17465 of 2024, decided 17.07.2026: dismissed the writ petition of M/s.Praxair India Private Limited challenging, via Certiorari under Article 226, the Labour Court, Kancheepuram Award dated 05.10.2023 in I.D.No.711 of 2018, which had set aside the dismissal of workman A.Balasubramaniam and directed his re-employment with emoluments. Grounds: the termination letter of 09.12.2017 stated no reason and, admittedly, no enquiry was conducted before termination; Management witness R.W.1 admitted ignorance of any charge memo, departmental enquiry, enquiry officer's report or proof of allegations; the performance improvement plan was not accepted as amounting to an enquiry; and the retrenchment plea, urged for the first time in the Writ Petition, was held unentertainable as no such stand was taken before the Labour Court. Writ dismissed, no order as to costs; stay petition W.M.P.No.19257 of 2024 closed.

¶1

W.P.No.17465 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 17.07.2026

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

W.P.No.17465 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.19257 of 2024

¶7

M/s.Praxair India Private Limited, Represented by Authorised Signatory, Ms.Sony Bhatt, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Plot No.F-18, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram.

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

A.Balasubramaniam, S/o Agoram, No.84, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Sriperumbudur, Town - cum - Taluka, Kancheepuram.

¶11

.. Respondent

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to the Award, dated 05.10.2023, passed in I.D.No.711 of 2018 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kancheepuram and quash the same.

¶13

For petitioner : M/s.Hema Srinivasan

¶14

For respondent: Mr.K.K.Ram Siddhartha for Mr.S.Sivakumar

¶15

Page No.1 / 6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.17465 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner-Management is before this Court questioning the order passed by the Labour Court, Kancheepuram, dated 05.10.2023.

¶20

The facts of the case are that the respondent-workman, namely A.Balasubramaniam was appointed by the petitioner-Management as Senior Engineer on 17.06.2013. He was made permanent and was performing his job. However, he has also got increment in the year 2017. The petitioner was terminated from service on 09.12.2017 and no reasons were mentioned in the termination letter.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there would be performance improvement plan, whereby, the Management is monitoring and assessing the employee. In the performance improvement plan, it was found that the respondent/workman was frequently absent and not vigilant in his duties and was not collaborating with his team members. The said act of the respondent/workman was the reason for his termination.

¶22

Page No.2 / 6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.17465 of 2024

¶25

When questioned by this Court as to whether any enquiry was conducted before termination, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the performance improvement plan, which is the assessment made by the Management itself, would indicate that the respondent/workman was enquired into for the charges.

¶26

The Labour Court found that before termination of the workman, there was no enquiry conducted and the Management did not investigate into any of the allegations on the basis of the principles of natural justice.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management submitted that, the performance improvement plan itself amounts to enquiry, since the respondent-workman was assessed by the Management for the purpose of performance improvement plan.

¶28

As seen from the termination letter, dated 09.12.2017, there is no reason given as to why the respondent/workman was terminated. Admittedly, no enquiry was conducted before termination.

¶29

Page No.3 / 6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.17465 of 2024

¶32

Further, during the course of enquiry before the Labour Court, it was admitted by R.W.1 who is the witness for the Management , that, " .... I do (not) know whether the petitioner has been served with a charge memo regarding the above allegations. I do not know whether the departmental enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner. I do not know whether the report of the enquiry officer has been received. I do not know whether the allegation against the petitioner has been proved in the report ? or not ? I do not know the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner before his dismissal. I don't know the details. ... ..."

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Management raised a new argument stating that the termination of the respondent was on account of retrenchment. As such, the provisions relating to retrenchment, have to be followed by the Labour Court. As seen from the impugned order of the Labour Court, no such plea of retrenchment was raised before the Labour Court. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Management, introducing this ground of retrenchment, cannot be entertained in the Writ Petition, when no such stand was taken before the Labour Court.

¶34

Page No.4 / 6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.17465 of 2024

¶37

In view of the termination of the respondent-workman being not based on any enquiry, and no opportunity of hearing was given to defend himself, the Labour Court has rightly set aside the impugned dismissal order and directed to re-employ the respondent/workman with emoluments.

¶38