Employment Termination - High Court Injunction Against IT Sector Employee - CiteHR
Dinesh Divekar
Business Mentor, Consultant And Trainer
Asso.prof.(commerce & Management) Pg
Consultant In Legal Matters
Ram K Navaratna
Hr Consultancy

Cite.Co is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors sharing their experience and insights.
Join Us and help by adding your inputs. Contributions From Other Members Follow Below...
The Madras High Court has restrained India's leading information technology ("IT") company from terminating the employment of a software analyst. Though the facts are still awaited, such a development appears to be the first of its kind for the Indian IT industry, which is one of the largest employers of organized labour.

Newspaper reports1 suggest that the employee has claimed to be a 'workman' and has contended that the termination of her employment is in violation of the statute. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act"), India's most important labour law governing employer-employee relationships, prescribes the mechanism to be followed by employers for retrenchment (termination) of 'workmen' and the compensation payable upon such termination.

In light of the development, we have set out below some important provisions of law to be considered by employers in the software services sector with respect to employment termination.

* Workman under the ID Act: The ID Act protects only those employees who are categorized as 'workmen'. A 'workman', as per the statute, is any person employed in an industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward. The definition however excludes an employee employed in the managerial or administrative capacity; or in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding INR 10,000 (approx. US$ 167) per month. The scope of the term 'workman' has been highly litigated in India

* Concept of Retrenchment: The ID Act defines 'retrenchment' as termination of employment by the employer for any reason other than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. Retrenchment does not include: (i) voluntary retirement of the workman; (ii) retirement of the workman upon superannuation; (iii) termination as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment on its expiry; or (iv) termination on the ground of continued ill-health.

* Employer Obligations: The ID Act provides that a workman who has been in continuous service for at least one year can be retrenched only if the workman has been given at least one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment, or payment of wages in lieu thereof. In addition, the workman is entitled to receiving retrenchment compensation (severance) equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. Employers are also required to notify the labour authorities about the retrenchment, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed timeline. In addition to these provisions, the employment termination provisions under the state-specific statutes applicable to shops and establishments, standing orders, the employment contract and HR policies also need to be complied with. In case of a conflict, the provision that is more favourable to the employee would need to be adhered to.

* Termination sequence: The ID Act requires an employer to follow the last-in-first-out sequence while terminating employment. Accordingly, the employer is to terminate the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category. Such a sequence for termination may not be followed in situations where (i) there is an agreement between the employer and the workman to the contrary; or (ii) the employer can provide adequate reasons for terminating any other workman.

Re-employment of terminated workers: The ID Act obligates an employer to allow an opportunity to the terminated workmen to offer themselves for re-employment and such terminated workmen who apply for re-employment are to be given preference over others.

While this specific case could involve dimensions under statutes other than the ID Act, including protection of the employee under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, considering the repercussions, including the negative publicity and reputational risks, it is probably time for companies in the IT sector to re-evaluate and ensure their compliance with applicable employment laws.

Recent news articles2 also indicate the beginning of unionisation in the IT sector. Traditionally, union activity was limited to manufacturing and allied sectors. IT sector employees are now engaging with labour unions such as the Forum for IT Employees3 and the Young Tamil Nadu Movement. In addition to traditional forms of collective bargaining, labour unions are initiating online campaigns and resorting to social media with a view to secure employees their statutory rights


1. Madras high court stays termination of TCS employee - The Times of India

Court stays termination of TCS staff | Business Line

HC Restrains TCS From Retrenching Its Analyst

The First Mail | HC Restrains TCS From Retrenching Its Analyst

2. Trade union starts IT employees wing, asks techies to join - The Times of India

Trade unions urge IT employees to sign up - The Hindu

Are trade unions gaining a foothold in IT sector? - Livemint

3. Madras HC stays(interim) TCS to terminate a women employee(a FITE Member); A ray of hope for many - F.I.T.E.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.


<link no longer exists - removed>

Dear Adv PC Agarwal,
Thanks for sending the important piece of information. It deserves more than just appreciation.
For other members: - Dissemination of information of this post is important. Therefore, you may upload the link on your Facebook, Linkedin etc accounts.
Thanks and regards,
Dinesh Divekar

With full regard to Hon'ble High Court order, there is also need to refer to L.Chandra Kumar v UOI of Apex Court decided in 1997 and also followed by Apex Court in other cases and recently by the Allahabad High Court in Hariom v UOI decided in 2014 that recourse to High Court straight away under Art 226 is not permissible when remedy lies before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Similarly in the TCS matter recourse to tribunal/ labour court has to be taken firstly. We cannot comment more than this because we do not know facts in detail.Had the other party appeared at the time of submissions, the above legal position could have been brought out.

Good posting. Employers to be pro active and meet justice and equity. Ram K Navaratna HR Resonance
I have my own doubt, While the labour matters where govts./quasi govt. are involved could be tried in conciliation, labour court and Adm.Tribunals, HC and so on, whereas cases involving pvt. employers/'ees will be tried in lower/civil courts having jurisdiction in such matters. If so how the HC dealt the TCS case is not clear to me as well. Should await the developments unfolding shortly. Has the TCS challenged this IA order and pending ?
This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™