T.Pandian vs The Management, Matherson Automotive Technologies and Engineering Advocate - Mr.M. Kandasamy, Mr.P. Ashok Kumar — 22/2021
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2A(2). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 13th May 2026.
ID - Industrial Disputes
CNR: TNKP180001382021
Filing Number
138/2021
Filing Date
12-03-2021
Registration No
22/2021
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)
T.Pandian
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
Summary of Case 22/2021 (T. Pandiyan v. Motherson Automotive Technologies) The Labour Court, Kancheepuram ruled that while the termination of nine probationary employees by Motherson Automotive Technologies was technically valid under certified standing orders, the employer failed to substantiate poor performance claims with documentary evidence (appraisal forms or performance records). The court awarded each petitioner ₹75,000 in compensation as a token relief, rejecting their demand for reinstatement with back wages, and noted the terminations occurred suspiciously close to union strike notice issuance in August 2019. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 22/2021 (T. Pandiyan v. Motherson Automotive Technologies) The Labour Court, Kancheepuram ruled that while the termination of nine probationary employees by Motherson Automotive Technologies was technically valid under certified standing orders, the employer failed to substantiate poor performance claims with documentary evidence (appraisal forms or performance records). The court awarded each petitioner ₹75,000 in compensation as a token relief, rejecting their demand for reinstatement with back wages, and noted the terminations occurred suspiciously close to union strike notice issuance in August 2019. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts