M.Deepak vs The Management, Motherson Automotive Technologies and Engineering, Advocate - Mr.M. Kandasamy, Mr.P. Ashok Kumar — 31/2021
Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2A(2). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 14th May 2026.
ID - Industrial Disputes
CNR: TNKP180001472021
Filing Number
147/2021
Filing Date
12-03-2021
Registration No
31/2021
Registration Date
19-03-2021
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)
M.Deepak
Adv. S.Kumarasamy
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: Case 31/2021 (M. Deepak v. Motherson Automotive Technologies) The Labour Court rejected the petitioner's claim for reinstatement with back wages, instead awarding lump-sum compensation of Rs.30,000. The court found that while the petitioner's termination during probation (before completion of probation period) was procedurally questionable, the management failed to produce evidence of unsatisfactory performance through appraisal forms or documentation. The court determined that since no permanent status had been formally conferred, reinstatement was not appropriate, but compensation was warranted given the procedural deficiencies and lack of substantive proof of poor performance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: Case 31/2021 (M. Deepak v. Motherson Automotive Technologies) The Labour Court rejected the petitioner's claim for reinstatement with back wages, instead awarding lump-sum compensation of Rs.30,000. The court found that while the petitioner's termination during probation (before completion of probation period) was procedurally questionable, the management failed to produce evidence of unsatisfactory performance through appraisal forms or documentation. The court determined that since no permanent status had been formally conferred, reinstatement was not appropriate, but compensation was warranted given the procedural deficiencies and lack of substantive proof of poor performance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts