According to media reports, a Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) employee Thirumalai Selvan, an IT engineer, was terminated in 2015 after over eight years of service with the organization.
After a legal battle for seven years, the labour court in Chennai has finally ruled in favor of the employee and has directed TCS to reinstate the techie.
The court has directed TCS to reinstate the 47-year-old techie and pay him back his full salary along with other benefits from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement.
As per TCS point of view, the company’s counsel claimed that the petitioner was terminated due to poor performance. The employee was an assistant system engineer who was discharged from his duties in 2015 due to mass retrenchment.
During his legal battle, he did odd jobs like real estate brokerage and as a freelance consultant on software projects, which didn’t pay much. His monthly earnings were reduced to less than Rs.10,000. The family managed with his savings and the salary of his wife, who works as a teacher.
The petitioner got support from the Forum for IT Employees, a body that works for the welfare and rights of IT employees in India that is run by a collective of IT professionals from different companies across the country.
Thirumalai Selvan said, “I would have traveled to the court more than 150 times in the last seven years.”
Forum for IT Employees (FITE) said in its Tweet, ” Justice anywhere is hope everywhere and a reminder to all who are forcing employees to resign. Great work done by Team FITE Chennai and salute to TCS employee who fought for justice”
Justices anywhere is a hope everywhere & reminder to all who are forcing employees to resign .
— Forum For IT Employees – FITE (@FITEMaharashtra) June 16, 2022
Great work #TeamFite Chennai , & salute to TCS employee who faught for justices 👍👍👍 pic.twitter.com/JttmgxSq2a
Selvan had approached the court as he was looking for continuity of service. In response to the petition, the corporate’s authorized consultant mentioned that the petitioner didn’t come beneath the class of ‘workman’ as per the Industrial Disputes Act (1947) and was somewhat working at a managerial put up.
The labour court waived off the arguments put forth by the company and said that hiding the petitioner’s other duties equals camouflaging the nature of his work.
