K.Nivash vs The Management, Matherson Automotive Technologies and Engineering, Advocate - Mr.M. Kandasamy, Mr.P. Ashok Kumar — 18/2021
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2A(2). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 13th May 2026.
ID - Industrial Disputes
CNR: TNKP180001342021
Filing Number
134/2021
Filing Date
12-03-2021
Registration No
18/2021
Registration Date
18-03-2021
Court
Labour Court, Kancheepuram
Judge
1-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kancheepuram
Decision Date
13th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K.Nivash
Adv. S.Kumarasamy, K.Bharathi, K.Suresh, J.Mohan Raj
Respondent(s)
The Management, Matherson Automotive Technologies and Engineering, Advocate - Mr.M. Kandasamy, Mr.P. Ashok Kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kancheepuram
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 16-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 06-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: K. Nivash v. Motherson Automotive Technologies & Engineering (ID.18/2021) The Labour Court of Kancheepuram awarded K. Nivash (and 8 co-workers) Rs. 75,000 each in compensation, rejecting their claims for reinstatement but finding the employer's termination unjustified. The petitioners were terminated on 27.08.2019 during their extended probation period citing "poor performance," but the court found no credible performance documentation and evidence of potential victimization following strike notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: K. Nivash v. Motherson Automotive Technologies & Engineering (ID.18/2021) The Labour Court of Kancheepuram awarded K. Nivash (and 8 co-workers) Rs. 75,000 each in compensation, rejecting their claims for reinstatement but finding the employer's termination unjustified. The petitioners were terminated on 27.08.2019 during their extended probation period citing "poor performance," but the court found no credible performance documentation and evidence of potential victimization following strike notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts