D.Manikandan vs The Management, Motherson Automotive Technologies and Engineering, Advocate - Mr.M. Kandasamy, Mr.P. Ashok Kumar — 34/2021

Case under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2A(2). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 14th May 2026.

ID - Industrial Disputes

CNR: TNKP180001502021

Case disposed

Filing Number

150/2021

Filing Date

12-03-2021

Registration No

34/2021

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

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 Section 2A(2)

Petitioner(s)

D.Manikandan

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

14-05-2026

Disposed

13-05-2026

Judgement

22-04-2026

Judgement

16-04-2026

Arguments

06-04-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

14-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary of Case 34/2021 - D. Manikandan v. Motherson Automotive Technologies & Engineering The Labour Court rejected D. Manikandan's claim for reinstatement with full back wages, finding the termination during probation was permissible under certified standing orders despite lack of documentary evidence of poor performance. However, the court awarded him lumpsum compensation of Rs.30,000 in the interest of justice, holding that the company failed to produce performance appraisal forms or improvement plans to justify the termination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 34/2021 - D. Manikandan v. Motherson Automotive Technologies & Engineering The Labour Court rejected D. Manikandan's claim for reinstatement with full back wages, finding the termination during probation was permissible under certified standing orders despite lack of documentary evidence of poor performance. However, the court awarded him lumpsum compensation of Rs.30,000 in the interest of justice, holding that the company failed to produce performance appraisal forms or improvement plans to justify the termination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Labour Court, Kancheepuram All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case