B.Arun vs The Management, Motherson Automotive Technologies and Engineering Advocate - Mr.M. Kandasamy, Mr.P. Ashok Kumar — 16/2021
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2A(2). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 14th May 2026.
ID - Industrial Disputes
CNR: TNKP180001322021
Filing Number
132/2021
Filing Date
12-03-2021
Registration No
16/2021
Registration Date
18-03-2021
Court
Labour Court, Kancheepuram
Judge
1-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kancheepuram
Decision Date
14th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
B.Arun
Adv. Mr.S.Kumarasamy, Mr.K.Bharathi, Mr.K.Suresh,
Respondent(s)
The Management, Motherson Automotive Technologies and Engineering Advocate - Mr.M. Kandasamy, Mr.P. Ashok Kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kancheepuram
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-05-2026 | Judgement |
| 22-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 16-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 06-04-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: ID 16/2021 - B. Arun v. Motherson Automotive Technologies The Labour Court rejected the petitioner's claim for reinstatement but awarded Rs. 25,000 as lumpsum compensation. The court found that while the management terminated the probationer during the probation period citing poor performance, they failed to produce performance appraisals, improvement plans, or objective evidence to justify the termination. The court concluded that without documented proof of unsatisfactory performance, compensation in lieu of reinstatement was appropriate, with 9% interest if payment is delayed beyond one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: ID 16/2021 - B. Arun v. Motherson Automotive Technologies The Labour Court rejected the petitioner's claim for reinstatement but awarded Rs. 25,000 as lumpsum compensation. The court found that while the management terminated the probationer during the probation period citing poor performance, they failed to produce performance appraisals, improvement plans, or objective evidence to justify the termination. The court concluded that without documented proof of unsatisfactory performance, compensation in lieu of reinstatement was appropriate, with 9% interest if payment is delayed beyond one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts