JYOTHY LABS LIMITED vs APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE TNSE ACT
- Court
- Madras High Court
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
Reserved On: 14.08.2026
W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch Delivered On:03.09.2026
Reserved On: 18.08.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. MANOHARAN
W.A.Nos.2952, 2960, 2938, 2939, 2940, 2941, 2943, 2944, 2945, 2946, 2948,
2949, 2950, 2951, 2953 to 2959 & 2962 of 2023
and
W.A.Nos.2664, 2669, 2662, 2663, 2665, 2666, 2667, 2668, 2670, 2671, 2672 &
2673 of 2026
and
C.M.P.Nos.24435, 24433, 24451, 24453, 24456, 24459, 24460, 24463, 24471,
24472, 24474, 24475, 24478, 24479, 24484, 24488, 24499, 24555, 24439,
24442, 24447, 24448 of 2023, C.M.P.No.19696 of 2025
W.A.No.2952 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director,
Ujala House Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India - 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel Marketing India Limited.,
Represented by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
______________
Page Nos.1/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai - 600 058.
3. Henkel India Limited,
Represented by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue, Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058.
4. Henkal AG and CO KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
5.Mr.V. Kumaravel
S/o. S. Vijayasekaran,
4/21A, Vasantham Apartments,
Venkatesh Nagar Main Road,
Virugambakkam,
Chennai – 600 092. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, pleased to set aside the order passed in
W.P.No.8325 of 2016, dated 19.07.2023.
W.A.No.2960 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
______________
Page Nos.2/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
2. Henkel India Limited.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG & Co KGaA,
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. Mr. K.Prabu
S/o.T.T.Kalyanasundaram (Late),
No.51, Pillaiyar Kovil Street,
Sakthi Flats, Block C, Door No.G 2,
Jafferhanpet, Chennai 83. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order passed in WP.No.8341 of
2016 dated 19.07.2023.
W.A.No.2938 of 2023
M/s.Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
______________
Page Nos.3/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG and Co KGaA,
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. Mr.R.A.Peter Alex,
S/o.Rayappan Arulsamy,
No.21, Kaveri Street, Sreet Nagar Colony,
Thirumullaivoil, Chennai 62. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8328 of 2016, dated
19.07.2023.
W.A.No.2939 of 2023
M/s.Jyothy Labs Limited,
Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director
Ujala House Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India - 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
______________
Page Nos.4/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
3. Henkal AG and Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. Mr.R.M.Seenivasagan,
S/o.Mr.Ramasamy,
New No.35, Old No.13, Flat No.18,
Selaiyar Street, First Floor,
Raja Annamalaipuram (PO),
Chennai-28. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, pleased to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8331 of
2016, dated 19.07.2023.
W.A.No.2940 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel Marketing India Limited.,
Represented by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
______________
Page Nos.5/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
3. Henkel India Limited,
Represented by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 058.
4. Henkal AG and CO KGaA
Represented by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
5. Mr. N.Kirubhakaran
S/o. Mr. T. Nathumani, Mullai Aparments,
Flat No.10, New No.126/Old No.55, Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Jafferkhanpet, Chennai 83. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8339 of
2016, dated 19-07-2023.
W.A.No.2941 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Ujala House Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India - 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel Marketing India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
______________
Page Nos.6/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
3. Henkel India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 058.
4. Henkal AG and CO KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
5. Mr. N.Dhanasekaran
S/o.R.Natarajan,
New No.35, Old No.23/2, Srinivasulu Street,
Ayanavaram, Chennai-600023. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8338 of 2016 dated
19.7.2023.
W.A.No.2943 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 058.
______________
Page Nos.7/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
3. Henkal AG and Co KGaA,
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4.M.T.Kumaravelu,
S/o.Late M.R.Thandavarayan,
New No.84, Old No.33, Butchammal Street,
New Washermanpet,
Chennai 81. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8330 of 2016, dated
19.07.2023.
W.A.No. 2944 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai - 600 058.
3. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
______________
Page Nos.8/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
4. Mr. M.T.Kumaravelu,
S/o. Late M.R. Thandavarayan,
New No.84, Old No.32, Butchammal Street,
New Washermanpet,
Chennai-600 081. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8329 of 2016, dated
19.07.2023.
W.A.No. 2945 of 2023
M/s.Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman cum Managing Director
Ujala House Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG and Co KgaA.,
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4.Mr.B.N.Sivaramakrishna Prasad,
S/o. Late Nathamuni,
st
No.1, 1 Main Road (West), Shenoy Nagar,
Chennai-600 030. … Respondents
______________
Page Nos.9/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.30380 of
2018, dated 19.07.2023.
W.A.No.2946 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG & Co KGaA,
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589, Dusswedorf, Germany.
4.Mr. P.Sampath
S/o.Late.Parthasarathy,
New No.56, Old No.12, South Beach Avenue,
st
1 Street, MRC Nagar,
Chennai-28. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8334 of 2016 dated
19.07.2023.
______________
Page Nos.10/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
W.A.No.2948 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MVV),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel Marketing India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkel India Limited
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 058.
4. Henkal AG and Co KGaA,
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
5.Mr. V.Kumaravel
S/o.S.Vijayasekaran,
No.4/21A, Vasantham Apartment,
Venkatesh Nagar Main Road,
Virugambakkam,
Chennai 92. … Respondents
______________
Page Nos.11/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8326 of 2016 dated
19.07.2023.
W.P.No.2949 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Ujala House Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel Marketing India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkel India Limited
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 058.
4. Henkal AG and CO KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
______________
Page Nos.12/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
5.Mr. D.Vijayalayan
S/o.A.K. Damodaran,
New No.15 (Old No.8), First Cross Street,
Kennedy Square, Sembiam,
Chennai 11. … Respondents
P rayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8324 of 2016 dated
19.07.2023.
W.A.No.2950 of 2023
M/s.Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel Marketing India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkel India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai - 600 058.
4. Henkal AG and Co KgaA,
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
______________
Page Nos.13/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf,
Germany.
5.Mr. D.Vijayalayan,
S/o. Mr. A.K. Damodaran,
New.No.15, Old.No.8, First Cross Street,
Kennedy Square,
Sembiam, Chennai -600 011. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8323 of 2016, dated
19.07.2023.
W.P.No.2951 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkel India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 058.
______________
Page Nos.14/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
4. Henkal AG and Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
5.Mr. N.Dhanasekaran
S/o.R. Natarajan,
New No. 35, Old No. 23/2, Srinivasulu, Street,
Ayanavaram, Chennai 23. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8337 of 2016 dated
19.07.2023.
W.A.No.2953 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Ujala House Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG and Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
______________
Page Nos.15/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
4. Mr. R.M.Seenivasagan,
S/o.Mr.Ramasamy,
New No.35, Old No.13,
Flat No.18, Salaiyar Street,
First Floor, Raja Annamalaipuram (PO),
Chennai-28. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8332 of 2016 dated
19.07.2023.
W.A.No.2954 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India - 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG and CO KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
______________
Page Nos.16/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
4. Mr. P.Sampath
S/o.Late.Parthasarathy,
New No.56, Old No.12, South Beach Avenue,
st
1 Street, MRC Nagar,
Chennai-28. … Respondents
P rayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8333 of 2016 dated
19.07.2023.
W.A.No.2955 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director
Ujala House Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. Mr. R.A. Peter Alex
S/o. Mr. Rayappan Arulsamy,
No.21, Kaveri St, Sree Nagar Colony,
Thirumullaivoil,
Chennai – 600 062. … Respondents
______________
Page Nos.17/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
P rayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8327 of 2016 dated
19.07.2023.
W.A.No.2956 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel Marketing India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkel India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
4. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
______________
Page Nos.18/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
5.Mr. N.Kirubhakaran
S/o.T.Nathamuni,
Mullai Apartment,
Flat No.10, New No.126/Old No.55,
Pillaiyar Koil Street, Jafferkhanpet,
Chennai 83. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8340 of 2016 dated
19.07.2023.
W.A.No.2957 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India - 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG and Co KGaA,
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
______________
Page Nos.19/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
4.Mr. N Ramamurthy,
S/o. K. Narayanasamy,
No.13-A, Lakshmi Apartments,
nd
2 Street, Balaji Nagar, Nanganallur,
Chennai-600 061. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.30373 of
2018 dated 19-07-2023.
W.A.No.2958 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited.,
Represented by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. Ms. Jamuna Sivakumar
S/o.Sivakumar,
G1 and G2, Jasmine Enclave,
______________
Page Nos.20/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
15/17, Bhagthavachalam Nagar, Anna Avenue,
Adayar, Behind Ganapathi Ram Theatre,
Chennai-600 020. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8336 of 2016 dated
19.07.2023.
W.A.No.2959 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, - Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589, Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. Ms. Jamuna Sivakumar
W/o.Mr. Sivakumar,
G1 and G2, Jasmine Enclave,
15/17, Bhagthavachalam Nagar,
Anna Avenue, Adayar,
Behind Ganapathi Ram Theatre,
Chennai 20. … Respondents
______________
Page Nos.21/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8335 of
2016 dated 19-07-2023.
W.A.No.2962 of 2023
M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058.
3. Henkal AG and Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. Mr. K.Prabhu
S/o.T.T.Kalyanasundaram (Late),
No.51, Pillaiyar Kovil Street,
Sakthi Flats, Block C, Door No.G-2,
Jafferhanpet, Chennai 83. … Respondents
______________
Page Nos.22/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8342 of 2016, dated
19.07.2023.
For Appellant:
in all appeals
Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel,
for Mr.John Zachariah.
For Respondents:
in W.A.Nos.2952, 2940,
2941, 2949, 2950, 2951,
Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan, for R5
2956 of 2023
For Respondents:
in W.A.Nos.2938, 2939,
2943, 2944, 2945, 2946,
2948, 2953, 2954, 2955,
Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan, for R4
2957, 2958, 2959, 2960
& 2962 of 2023 & 2942
of 2023
W.A.No.2664 of 2026
Mr. R.M.Seenivasagan,
S/o.Mr.Ramasamy,
New No.35, Old No.13, Flat No.18, Selaiyar Street,
st
1 Floor, Raja Annamalaipuram (PO),
Chennai-28 … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058.
______________
Page Nos.23/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
3. Henkal AG and Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. M/s. Jyothy Laboratories Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in
st
W.P.No.8331 of 2016 and restore the order of the 1 Respondent Appellate
Authority order dated 16.12.2015, made in the TNSE Appal TSE/II/15/2012 and
allow this Writ Appeal with cost.
W.A.No.2669 of 2026
Mr. P.Sampath
S/o.Late.Parthasarathy,
New NO.56, Old No.12, South Beach Avenue,
st
1 Street, MRC Nagar,
Chennai-28. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
Nos.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058.
______________
Page Nos.24/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
3. Henkal AG and Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasses 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. M/s. Jyothy Lab Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in
W.P.No.8333 of 2016 and restore the order of the 1st respondent Appellate
Authority order dated 16.12.2015, made in the TNSE Appeal TSE II/13/2012,
and allow this Writ Appeal with cost.
W.A.No.2662 of 2026
D.Vijayalayan,
S/o.A.K.Damodaran,
New No.15, Old NO.8, First Cross Street,
Kennedy Square, Sembiam,
Chennai-600 011. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel Marketing India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
______________
Page Nos.25/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
3. Henkel India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058.
4. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
5. M/s. Jyothy Lab Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order dt. 19.07.2023 made in WP
st
No.8323/2016 and restore the order of the 1 Respondent Appellate Authority
order dt.16.12.2015 made in the TNSE Appeal TSE II/14/2012 and allow this
Writ Appeal.
W.P.No.2663 of 2026
V. Kumaravel
S/o. S. Vijayasekaran,
No.4/21A, Vasantham Apartments,
Venkatesh Nagar Main Road,
Virugambakkam,
Chennai – 092. … Appellant
/versus/
______________
Page Nos.26/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel Marketing India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkel India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
4. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
5. M/s. Jyothy Lab Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in
st
W.P.No.8325 of 2016 and restore the order of the 1 Respondent Appellate
Authority order dated 16.12.2015, made in TNSE Appeal TSE II/10/2012 and
allow this Writ Appeal with cost.
______________
Page Nos.27/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
W.A.No.2665 of 2026
Mr. N. Dhanasekaran
S/o.R.Natarajan,
New No.35 Old No.23/2,
Srinivasalu Street, Ayanavaram,
Chennai - 600 023. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel Marketing India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkel India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
4. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
5. M/s. Jyothy Lab Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order dt. 19.07.2023 made in
______________
Page Nos.28/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
st
W.P.No.8337 of 2016 and restore the order of the 1 Respondent Appellate
Authority order dated 16.12.2015, made in the TNSE Appeal TSE II/19/2012,
and allow this Writ Appeal.
W.A.No.2666 of 2026
Ms. Jamuna Sivakumar
W/o.Mr.Sivakumar,
G1 and G2, Jasmine Enclave,
15/17, Bhagthavachalam Nagar,
Anna Avenue, Adayar, Behind Ganapathi Ram Theatre,
Chennai-20. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. M/s. Jyothy Lab Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in
______________
Page Nos.29/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
W.P.No.8335 of 2016 and restore the order of the 1st respondent Appellate
Authority order dated 16.12.2015, made in the TNSE Appeal TSE II/18/2012,
and allow this Writ Appeal with cost.
W.A.No.2667 of 2026
Mr. B.N. Sivaramakrishna Prasad
S/o.Late.Nathamuni,
st
No.1, 1 Main Road, (West) Shenoy Nagar,
Chennai - 600 030. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. M/s. Jyothy Lab Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in
______________
Page Nos.30/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
st
WP.No.30380 of 2018 and restore the order of the 1 Respondent Appellate
Authority order dated 30.05.2018, made in the TNSE Appal TSE/II/11/2012 and
allow this Writ Appeal with cost.
W.A.No.2668 of 2026
Mr. K.Prabu
S/o.T.T.Kalyanasundaram Late,
st
No.123, 1 Street, Casagrand Bloom,
Thirumudivakkam,
Chennai - 600 044. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. M/s. Jyothy Lab Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Respondents
______________
Page Nos.31/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 made in
st
W.P.No.8341 of 2016 and restore the order of the 1 Respondent Appellate
Authority order dt.16.12.2015 made in the TNSE Appeal TSE II/8/2012, and
allow this Writ Appeal.
W.A.No.2670 of 2026
Mr. R.A.Peter Alex
S/o. Mr. Rayappan Arulsamy,
No.21, Kaveri Street, Street Nagar Colony,
Thirumullaivoil,
Chennai 62. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG & Co KGaA,
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. M/s. Jyothy Lab Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Respondents
______________
Page Nos.32/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in
st
W.P.No.8327 of 2016 and restore the order of the 1 Respondent Appellate
Authority order dated 16.12.2015 made in the TNSE Appal TSE/II/16/2012 and
allow this Writ Appeal with cost.
W.A.No.2671 of 2026
Mr. M.T. Kumaravelu,
S/o.Late M.R.Thandavarayan,
New No.84, Old No.33, Butchammal Street,
New Washermanpet,
Chennai – 081. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. M/s. Jyothy Lab Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Respondents
______________
Page Nos.33/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in
st
WP No.8329 of 2016 and restore the order of the 1 respondent Appellate
Authority order dated 16.12.2015, made in the TNSE Appeal TSE II/12/2012,
and allow this Writ Appeal with cost.
W.A.No.2672 of 2026
Mr. N.Ramamurthy
S/o. K.Narayanasamy,
No 13-A, Lakshmi Apartments,
nd
2 Street, Balaji Nagar,
Nanganallur, Chennai 061. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
4. M/s. Jyothy Lab Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Respondents
______________
Page Nos.34/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in
W.P.No.30373 of 2016 and restore the order of the 1st respondent Appellate
Authority order dated 30.05.2018, made in the TNSE Appeal TSE II/9/2012,
and allow this Writ Appeal with cost.
W.A.No.2673 of 2026
Mr. N. Kirubhakaran
S/o. T. Nathamuni,
Alsa Townsville, Flat No.105, No.170/38,
Arcot Road, Valasarawakkam,
Chennai – 087. … Appellant
/versus/
1. Appellate Authority Under The TNSE Act
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (MW),
Chennai-600 006.
2. Henkel Marketing India Limited,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
3. Henkel India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager (Finance),
No.69 and 70, Southern Avenue,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.
4. Henkal AG & Co KGaA
Rep. by Chairwoman of Supervisory Board,
Henkel AG and Co., KGaA Headquarters,
Henkelstrasse 67, 40589,
Dusswedorf, Germany.
______________
Page Nos.35/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
5. M/s. Jyothy Lab Limited,
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Ujala House, Ram Krishna Mandir Road,
Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai,
India 400 059. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to issue
Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to set aside the order dated 19.07.2023 made in
st
W.P.No.8339 of 2016 and restore the order of the 1 Respondent Appellate
Authority order dt.16.12.2015 made in the TNSE Appeal TSE II/20/2012, and
allow this Writ Appeal.
For Appellant:
in all appeals
Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan
For Respondents:
in W.A.Nos.2664, 2669, 2666,
Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel,
for Mr.John Zachariah, for R4
2667, 2668, 2670, 2671 &
2672 of 2026
For Respondents:
in W.A.Nos.2662, 2663, 2665
Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel,
for Mr.John Zachariah, for R5
& 2673 of 2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
Introduction:
This is the case of eleven terminated employees of M/s.Henkel India
Limited, which was a subsidiary Company of M/s.Henkel AG and CO KGaA,
Germany, holding 50.9% of shares. Those shares were transferred to the
______________
Page Nos.36/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
appellant Company, namely M/s.Jyothy Labs Limited (JLL) and in the course of
takeover and amalgamation, these 11 employees were terminated on 01.11.2011
after issuance of notice, giving three months salary and ex gratia.
2. The said 11 employees approached the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour (Minimum Wages), who is the Appellate Authority appointed under the
Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, seeking redressal under
Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act. They prayed for
reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits.
Subsequently, the prayer was amended for the relief of ‘severance
compensation’ under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 relying
on the settlement entered between the appellant and its workmen engaged in
Karaikal Unit under Section 18(1) dated 28.07.2012 and the settlement under
Section 12(3) dated 10.08.2012.
3. Initially after transfer of shares, from 24.08.2012, the name of
M/s.Henkel India Limited changed to M/s.Jyothy Consumer Products Limited.
Thereafter, on 12.04.2013 M/s.Jyothy Consumer Products Limited (JCL) got
merged with M/s.Jyothy Labs Limited (JLL) which is the appellant herein.
______________
Page Nos.37/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
4. For convenient understanding of the dispute, the essential details of
the 11 employees, including their names, designations, date of joining, last
drawn wages and date of termination, are given in the table provided below:
Sl.No. TNSE
Appeal No.
Name of the
Designation
at the time of
Date of
Joining
Last drawn
Date of
termination
Appellant
wages
Thiru.
appointment
1. 8/2012 K.Prabu Junior
Accountant
15.03.91 53,118/- 29.10.2012
2. 12/2012 M.T.Kumaravelu Junior Steno
01.01.93 33,402/- 29.10.2012
Assistant
3. 13/2012 P.Sampath Junior Steno
20.2.92 37,792/- 29.10.2012
Assistant
4. 15/2012 RM.Seenivasagan Junior
Assistant
15.3.91 36,670/- 29.10.2012
5. 16/2012 R.A.Peter Alex Sales Officer 3.1.94 1,00,343/- 29.10.2012
6. 17/2012 S. Karunanidhi Casual
Employee
1.1.93 12,996/- 29.10.2012
7. 18/2012 Thirumathi
Confidential
1.2.2000 35,849/- 29.10.2012
Jamuna
Sivakumar
Secretary
8. 10/2012 V.Kumaravel Trainee 18.11.97 20,009/- 29.10.2012
9. 14/2012 D.Vijayalayan Purchase
Assistant
15.12.05 49,431/- 29.10.2012
10. 19/2012 N.Dhanasekaran Depot
Assistant
1.10.93 30,611/- 29.10.2012
11. 20/2012 N.Kirubhakaran Traniee 2.5.2002 23,515/- 29.10.2012
5. The Appellate Authority, after considering the pleadings,
formulated the main points and the ancillary points for consideration, as set out
below:
______________
Page Nos.38/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
(i) The main points arise for consideration:
1) Whether the appeals filed by the appellants
under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act are
maintainable?
2) Whether the appellants can claim
compensation under Chapter V-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act in an appeal filed under section 41 of the
Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act and whether
the Authority has got jurisdiction to try the claims?
3) Whether the appellants are entitled to
receive retrenchment compensation in view of their
termination? If so, how to compute the quantum of
compensation?
(ii) The ancillary points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the appellants are 'workman' under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
(ii) Whether the respondents 'establishment' is
an ‘industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947?
(iii) Whether the termination of services of the
appellants amounts to ‘retrenchment’ under Chapter V-A
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
______________
Page Nos.39/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
6. Based on the evidence, the Appellate Authority, accepted the plea
of the employees that, though they were designated as Managers, their service
conditions remained unchanged throughout their employment and they were not
conferred any managerial powers or duties or responsibilities of a Manager.
Since they continued to carry out their work as Accountants/Clerks etc., the
Appellate Authority held that these employees are to be considered as
‘retrenched workmen’, for the purpose of claiming relief under the Industrial
Disputes Act. Taking into consideration of the fact that their termination of
services was a consequence of the transfer of the Management from M/s.Henkel
India Limited to M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Limited, as envisaged under Section
25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, it amounts to retrenchment. That apart,
taking note of the fact that when a dispute raised by the Trade Union
functioning in the M/s. Henkel India Limited, Karaikal factory, an amicable
settlement was arrived between the Workmen and the Management on
28.07.2012. Hence, applying the principle of 'Functional integrality', the
Appellate Authority held that the terms of that settlement shall apply to these 11
employees also in view of the interdependence between the Factory at Karaikal
and the Corporate Office at Chennai, where the appellant-employees were
engaged. Accordingly, 90 days pay as severance compensation for each
______________
Page Nos.40/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
completed year of service was awarded with 12% interest.
7. Thus, in effect, the severance compensation payable to the 11
appellants was arrived as set out below and the Management was directed to pay
the compensation amount together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum,
from the date of termination till the date of payment of the entire amount.
Sl.
No.
TNSE
Appeal
Name of the Appellant
Compensation
Thiru.
Payable Rs.
No.
1. 8/2012 K.Prabu 35,05,789/-
2. 12/2012 M.T.Kumaravelu 20,04,120/-
3. 13/2012 P.Sampath 23,80,896/-
4. 15/2012 RM.Seenivasagan 24,20,220/-
5. 16/2012 R.A.Peter Alex 57,19,551/-
6. 17/2012 S. Karunanidhi 7,79,760/-
7. 18/2012 Thirumathi Jamuna Sivakumar 13,98,111/-
8. 10/2012 V.Kumaravel 9,00,405/-
9. 14/2012 D.Vijayalayan 10,38,051/-
10. 19/2012 N.Dhanasekaran 17,44,827/-
11. 20/2012 N.Kirubhakaran 7,75,995
Total amount Rs.2,26,67,724/-
8. The Management, on being aggrieved by the award of severance
compensation at the rate of 90 days salary for every completed year of service,
together with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of termination, preferred
______________
Page Nos.41/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
W.P.Nos. 8323 to 8344 of 2016 and W.P.Nos.30373 and 30380 of 2018.
9. The Learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petitions vide a
common order dated 19.07.2023, modifying the order of the Appellate
Authority to the effect that the severance compensation be calculated at the rate
of 70 days salary for every completed year of service and also reduced the rate
of interest from 12% to 6% per annum, commencing from the date of
termination till the date of payment. The modification was ordered recording
the statement made by the Learned Counsel appearing for the employees that
the Management had earlier agreed before the Appellate Authority to pay 65
days salary for every completed year of service as severance compensation. As
against the common order of the Learned Single Judge, two sets of intra-court
appeals are filed by the Management, in respect of each employees separately
and another set by the Employees
10. In the appeals filed by the Management, besides the legality of
converting petition filed under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act to
Industrial Disputes Act, the legality of directing the Management to pay 70 days
salary for every completed year of service and payment of interest at the rate of
______________
Page Nos.42/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
6% from the date of termination till the date of payment are questioned. The
contention of the management is on the ground that these 11 employees are not
workmen. The Management had paid enough compensation on termination of
these 11 employees. It never agreed to pay 65 days salary for each completed
year of service as recorded by the learned Single Judge. There is no functional
integrality between the Corporate Office at Chennai in which these 11
employees served and the Factory at Karaikal to draw parity for extending the
terms of the settlement entered in respect of the workers to these 11 employees.
11. On the part of the employees, being aggrieved by the order of the
Learned Single Judge reducing the days of salary from 90 days to 70 days and
the reduction of the interest rate from 12 % to 6 %, they have preferred appeals.
12. In short, the relief sought by the Management in the batch of Writ
Appeals filed against the order of the Learned Single Judge is: (i) to set aside
the common order of the High Court in the batch of writ petitions filed by them
(ii) to set aside the order of the Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner of
Labour) dated 16.12.2015 in toto, (iii) to consequentially dismiss the appeals
filed by the employees before the Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner
______________
Page Nos.43/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
of Labour). Whereas, in the batch of appeals filed by the employees, they pray
to set aside the common-order passed in the Writ Petitions which has modified
the relief and to restore the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour/the
Appellate Authority and to direct the payment of 90 days salary for every
completed year of service with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the
date of termination till the date of payment of the compensation as ordered by
the Appellate Authority.
13. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Management and the
Learned counsel appearing for the employees made their respective
submissions, with judgments as precedent in support of their line of submission.
14. Submissions and the reasoning:
The Learned Counsel appearing for the Management contended that
the 11 employees who approached the Appellate Authority were the persons
with managerial skills employed under the erstwhile establishment. Knowing
well they are employees with Managerial skill working under the erstwhile
Management, on termination challenged the same and sought reinstatement with
back wages as per the provisions of Shops and Establishment Act. The relief
______________
Page Nos.44/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
was against the erstwhile Management at Germany and its subsidiary
establishment at India and the appellant Company. Later without amending the
petition, the relief alone was converted for 'severance compensation' under the
Industrial Disputes Act. The Appellate Authority erroneously granted the relief
as claimed, though these 11 employees do not fall within the category of
“Workman” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act nor their termination
of service amount to retrenchment.
15. The Learned Counsel for the Management submits that the
conversion of the petition filed under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and
Establishments Act (TNSE Act) into a petition under the Industrial Disputes Act
which is only for employees those who fall within the definition of 'Workman'
is exfacie erroneous. The termination of these 11 employees on closure of the
Corporate Office will not fall within the meaning of 'retrenchment' on merger so
as to attract the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to fix
liability of paying severance compensation on the appellant. These employees
are entitled for compensation as per their terms of appointment and promotion
order. Having paid the compensation as per the terms of service condition, the
appellant need not pay anything more.
______________
Page Nos.45/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
16. The next contention raised by the Management is that the
settlement under Section 18(1), followed by the settlement under Section 12(3)
between M/s.Henkel India Limited and the workers at Karaikal factory, have no
relevance to the contesting employees who worked in the cadre of Managers in
the Corporate Office at Chennai. These 11 employees were discharging the
duties in the cadre of Managers and retained for a period to oversee the closure
of the units running in loss. It was further contended that, even assuming
Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the respondents, the
compensation awarded should have been only in terms of Section 25FF of
Industrial Disputes Act and not otherwise. By erroneously applying the
doctrine of functional integrality, wrongly compensation was awarded par with
the Workmen at Karaikal Factory. In the absence of pleading and proof for
sharing the common pool of resources, the Appellate Authority ought not to
have applied the doctrine of Functional Integrality. He further submitted, the
Learned Judge in Writ Petitions though held these 11 employees are not
‘Workman’, however awarded an exgratia compensation of 65 days salary per
completed year of service with 6% interest.
______________
Page Nos.46/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
17. According to the Management, the termination was the result of a
closure of the Madras Corporate Office and it does not amount to retrenchment.
In the course of the amalgamation of M/s.Jyothy Consumer Products Limited
(JCL) with M/s.Jyothy Labs Limited (JLL), some employees were transferred to
other units and some were terminated after paying the compensation more than
what statute mandates. In the employment orders issued to the contesting
respondents, it is clearly stated that their employment is terminable with three
months notice under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments
Act. The termination orders were issued along with the compensation payable
in lieu of termination and an additional amount was also paid as ex-gratis .
While so, the workers at Karaikal factory, at the time of the takeover by
M/s.Jyothy Consumer Products Limited (JCL) from M/s.Henkel on
amalgamation with M/s.Jyothy Labs Limited (JLL) were later terminated and
paid with compensation pursuant to the settlements under Sections 18(1) and 12
(3). These workmen are class by themselves and hence parity could not be
drawn between the Managers or technically skilled persons working at the
Corporate Office in Chennai and the workers employed at the Factory in
Karaikal.
______________
Page Nos.47/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
18. According to the Management, the Appellate Authority, by
misapplying the doctrine of functional integrality between the Karaikal factory
and Corporate office at Chennai, erred in awarding 90 days salary for every
completed year of service, which amounts to treating unequals as equals. While
so, the Learned Single Judge without addressing the core legal and factual error
in the award of the Appellate Authority, modified the award instead of setting
aside the award.
19. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
workmen/employees submitted that, though initially the appeals were filed for
reinstatement and back wages under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and
Establishments Act, which is a State enactment, at the relevant point of time, the
said Act contained no provision for seeking relief in cases of retrenchment. In
such case, Courts have held the Central legislation (i.e., Industrial Disputes Act)
which occupies the field has to be followed. The Appellate Authority had
rightly applied the law as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and awarded the
appropriate and fair compensation. Whereas the Learned Single Judge, without
any justifiable reasoning reduced the quantum of relief as well as the rate of
interest. The reduction of relief without any plausible reason is liable to be set
______________
Page Nos.48/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
aside and the order of Deputy Commissioner of Labour/the Appellate Authority
to be restored.
20. To buttress the above submission, the Learned Counsel for the
Employees, rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna
District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Vijayawada vs.
N.V.Purnachandra Rao & others reported in 1987 AIR 1960, which was
subsequently followed by other High Courts.
21. It is the case of the Learned Counsel for the employees that the
Courts in India had consistently held, the provisions in Chapter V-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act under the heading 'Retrenchment' occupies the field in
case of employees covered under the Shops and Establishment Act, whenever
the termination arises due to transfer of Undertaking. In the instant case, though
the termination was challenged before the Appellate Authority, realising the
'termination order' in fact is a retrenchment in view of transfer of the
Management on merger, relief under the Industrial Disputes Act was sought and
the Appellate Authority had rightly considered the dictum laid by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and awarded adequate compensation under appropriate statute.
______________
Page Nos.49/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Whereas, the High Court, without assigning any reason had reduced the
quantum of compensation from 90 days to 70 days salary for every completed
year of service and also reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 6% per annum.
Hence, the order of the Learned Single Judge which does not provide reason as
to why the original order passed by the Appellate Authority is to be restored.
22. In the course of argument, it was brought to our notice that
pending appeal, one of the employee had entered into a compromise with the
Management and agreed to withdraw his claim. The Management has paid him
15 days salary for each completed year of service and when same compensation
was offered by the Management to the remaining appellants, they declined.
23. Analysis of rival submissions:
It is an admitted fact that these employees were not appointed by the
Appellant Company, namely M/s. Jyothy Labs Limited . They were employed
with M/s.Henkel India Limited, which was a subsidiary Company of
M/s.Henkal AG & Co. KGaA, Germany. After acquiring the shares of
M/s.Henkal AG&Co, KGaA, Germany , the Management has stage by stage
drifted to the Appellant Company.
______________
Page Nos.50/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
24. The Learned Counsel appearing for the employees states that the
notice ordered by this Court in the appeals filed by the employees to serve on
M/s.Henkal AG & Co KGaA, Germany, the former holding company, could not
be served in view of its location. Though there was no direct privity of contract
between the contesting employees and first respondent, however by virtue of the
terms of the amalgamation the Management which has taken over the company
has taken the responsibility of paying the employees worked under the erstwhile
management. Having taken over the Management, M/s.Jyothy Lab Limited , has
paid a paltry sum as compensation. After paying the ‘severance compensation’
to one of the employees and settled the matter outside the Court, in the course
of pendency of the present appeals, the Management cannot evade its
responsibility towards rest of the employees, Management is estopped from
claiming that the contesting employees are not entitled for ‘severance
compensation’ as per provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Even under the
Shops and Establishments Act, after the amendment and insertion of sub-section
(2-B) to Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, the
Management would be liable to pay compensation if there is scope for
reinstatement, the Act being a beneficial legislation, the amendment has to be
given retrospective effect.
______________
Page Nos.51/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
25. From the submissions made on the side of the Management and
on the side of the Employees, the following points arises for consideration:
(i) Whether the respondent-employees fall
within the definition of “workmen” under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ? and
(ii) Whether the compensation paid or
offered by the Management at the time of termination
was adequate in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act
or under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act
and, if not, whether the employees are entitled for
higher compensation, If yes, whether parity drawn
with the employees engaged at the Karaikal factory
based on the principle of functional integrality is
sustainable?
26. For proper answer to the above questions, the provisions which
are relevant and necessary are to be referred.
______________
Page Nos.52/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
(i) Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, reads
as below:
41. Notice of dismissal -
(1) No employer shall dispense with the
services of a person employed continuously for a period of
not less than six months, except for a reasonable cause
and without giving such person at least one months notice
or wages in lieu of such notice, provided however, that
such notice shall not be necessary where the services of
such person are dispensed with on a charge of misconduct
supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry
held for the purpose. (Emphasis added)
(2) The person employed shall have a right to
appeal to such authority and within such time as may be
prescribed either on the ground that there was no
reasonable cause for dispensing with his services or on
the ground that he had not been guilty of misconduct as
held by the employer.(Emphasis added)
(3) The decision of the appellate authority shall
be final and binding on both the employer and the person
employed.
______________
Page Nos.53/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
(ii) Section 41(2-B) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act,
1947, (w.e.f., 01.04.2017) reads as below:-
“(2-B) The appellate authority, may, after
giving notice in the prescribed manner to the employer
and the person employed, dismiss the appeal or direct the
reinstatement of the person employed, with or without
wages for the period he was kept out of employment or
direct payment of compensation without reinstatement of
grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances
of the case.” (Emphasis added)
(iii) Section 25 FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, reads as below:-
“25-FF. Compensation to workmen in case of
transfer of undertakings.— Where the ownership or
management of an undertaking is transferred, whether by
agreement or by operation of law, from the employer in
relation to that undertaking to a new employer, every
workman who has been in continuous service for not less
than one year in that undertaking immediately before such
transfer shall be entitled to notice and compensation in
accordance with the provisions of section 25F, as if the
workman had been retrenched:
Provided that nothing in this section shall
apply to a workman in any case where there has been a
change of employers by reason of the transfer, if—
______________
Page Nos.54/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
(a) the service of the workman has not been
interrupted by such transfer;
(b) the terms and conditions of service
applicable to the workman after such transfer are not in
any way less favourable to the workman than those
applicable to him immediately before the transfer; and
(c) the new employer is, under the terms of
such transfer or otherwise, legally liable to pay to the
workman, in the event of his retrenchment, compensation
on the basis that his service has been continuous and has
not been interrupted by the transfer.”
(iv) Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, reads as below:
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of
workmen.— No workman employed in any industry who
has been in continuous service for not less than one year
under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer
until—
(a) the workman has been given one month's
notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment
and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has
been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of
the notice;
______________
Page Nos.55/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to
fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of
continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six
months ; and (Emphasis added)
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on
the appropriate Government or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in
the Official Gazette.”
27. As submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Management, we
find that the said sub-section (2-B) of Section 41 in Tamil Nadu Shops and
Establishments Act, was inserted by way of Amendment which has came into
effect only on 01.04.2017 and therefore, the amended provision to Section 41 of
the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, would not apply to employees
who were terminated under Section 41 long before the advent of sub-section (2-
B) to Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. However,
taking into consideration, the lacunae in the State Legislation viz., Shops and
Establishment Act, Courts have consistently held that, in case of retrenchment if
the State Act is silent about severance compensation, the benefit of the Central
Legislation viz., Industrial Disputes Act, can be extended. In such facts and
circumstances, the claim of severance compensation is maintainable provided
______________
Page Nos.56/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
the employee proves that he is a workman and entitled to get benefits of Chapter
V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(i) T.N.Chandra vs. South India Corporation reported in (1992) 1
LLJ 739 and
(ii) M.Arunagiri vs. Bata India Ltd reported in (1992) 2 LLJ 46 .
28. To find out whether the employees, in this case clear the test laid
in the above cases cited for substituting the relief, it is necessary to first look at
the definition of “Workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in the landmark case Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage
Board vs. A.Rajappa , reported in AIR 1978 SC 548 , laid down the below Triple
test for industries:-
(i) A systematic activity,
(ii) Organized cooperation between employer and employees and;
(iii) Distribution of goods or services to satisfy human wants.
29. Even if the organization satisfies the above triple test, ipso facto
all the persons employed in the industry cannot become workmen unless they
______________
Page Nos.57/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
satisfy the definition of “workmen” to claim relief under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. The definition of ‘Workman’ in Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, reads as below:-
2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless there is
anything repugnant in the subject or context, -
(s) "workman" means any person (including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or
supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of
any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial
dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed,
discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,
discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but
does not include any such person-
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45
of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy
Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii)who is employed in the police service or as
an officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii)who is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity, or
(iv)who, being employed in a supervisory
capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees]
______________
Page Nos.58/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties
attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in
him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
30. In the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the specific case of
the petitioners is that they were employees of M/s.Henkel Marketing India Ltd.,
a holding Company of M/s.Henkel India Ltd and the appellant herein, namely
M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Limited, had acquired the entire shares of holding
Company and trying to merge M/s.Henkel India Limited and M/s.Henkel
Marketing India Ltd., together with M/s.Jyothy Labs Limited hence their
termination is illegal. Therefore, they have to be reinstated in services.
However, neither in the petitions filed under Section 41 of Tamil Nadu Shops
and Establishments Act nor after amendment to the relief by converting the
petitions under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, for severance
compensation on the ground of retrenchment due to transfer of undertaking, the
petitioners have made any amendment to describe themselves as “Workmen”
and explained how they fall within the meaning of Workmen. Only in the
course of examination before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, they have
claimed that though they all were promoted as Managers, there was no change
in the nature of the work and they were discharging the same work as before
______________
Page Nos.59/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
their promotion to higher post with higher pay.
31. In the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the
employees, in their respective appeals had invariably contended that they were
employed at the Principal/Corporate Office of M/s. Henkel India Limited and in
the clerical Department of M/s. Henkel factory situated at Karaikal, Puducherry.
Since the Appellant company, M/s. Jyothy Laboratory Limited, did not come
forward to take up the M/s. Henkel Employees without interruption of
continuity of service, the M/s. Henkel India Employees Union raised a dispute
before the Labour Officer (Conciliation) and also filed W.P.No.13385 of 2011
seeking severance compensation on account of transfer of undertaking from
M/s.Henkel to M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Limited, in which the Management of
M/s.Henkel conceded to pay compensation to all employees as per Section
25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, regarding severance
compensation irrespective of the cadre, the Henkel Management entered into a
settlement under Section 12(3) with the M/s. Henkel India Employees Trade
Union on 10.08.2012 and also a settlement under Section 18(1) on 28.07.2012
with individual employees, in which the employees of Henkel, including those
in managerial cadre were paid severance compensation and terminal benefits.
______________
Page Nos.60/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Therefore, these 11 employees though were not part of the Union or the
settlement, they are entitled for severance compensation from M/s. Jyothy
Laboratories Limited (the transferee company).
32. The claim of parity may not be appropriate, since the settlement
and undertaking given to the Court by M/s.Henkel in respect of its employees
cannot be passed on to the transferee Company, namely M/s.Jyothy
Laboratories Limited merely on the basis of amalgamation. The employees,
who were working in promoted cadre as Managers at the time of termination,
due to closure of the Corporate office at Chennai and shifting the administration
to Bangalore, cannot seek severance compensation from the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour based on the settlements entered with the Workmen
entered earlier to their termination. Besides the power to award severance
compensation under Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act vest with the
Labour Court and not with the Labour Commissioner. That apart, if any
employee wants to claim benefit of workman, he must first plead and satisfy the
definition of “Workman” under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act and the
burden of proof that he is a Workman vest with the employee as laid in
H.R.Adyanthaya and Others vs. Sandoz (India) Limited and Others, reported
______________
Page Nos.61/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
in (1994) 5 SCC 737 and R.Kannabiran vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour
(Appellate Authority) reported in 2002 (3) LLN 541.
33 . The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, while considering the
submissions made on behalf of the employees found in the letter of promotion,
there is a clause that all terms and conditions of service as contained in the
original order of appointment will continue to subsist. Based on this clause, he
had arrived at the conclusion that there is no change in service condition. The
Deputy Commissioner failed to consider other conditions in the same order. As
a result, he has erred in holding there is no change in the service conditions and
the promotion has not conferred any higher status to the petitioners.
34. In fact, at the time of termination, the designation of the 11
employees was as below:-
Sl.
No.
TNSE Appeal
Name of the Appellant
Designation at the time of
No.
Thiru.
appointment
1. 8/2012 K.Prabu Junior Accountant
2. 12/2012 M.T.Kumaravelu Junior Steno Assistant
3. 13/2012 P.Sampath Junior Steno Assistant
4. 15/2012 RM.Seenivasagan Junior Assistant
5. 16/2012 R.A.Peter Alex Sales Officer
6. 17/2012 S. Karunanidhi Casual Employee
______________
Page Nos.62/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
7. 18/2012 Thirumathi Jamuna
Confidential
Sivakumar
Secretary
8. 10/2012 V.Kumaravel Trainee
9. 14/2012 D.Vijayalayan Purchase Assistant
10. 19/2012 N.Dhanasekaran Depot Assistant
11. 20/2012 N.Kirubhakaran Trainee
35. From the above list, it is seen that the persons who were earlier
appointed as Junior Accountant, Junior Assistant, Junior Assistant (Sales
Officer), or Confidential Secretary were later promoted as Assistant Manager,
Finance Executive, Secretary, Account Executive, Manager, etc., except one
person, namely Thiru.S.Karunanidhi who was appointed as casual employee
and later promoted as Driver-cum-Attender. It is reported that pending writ
appeals settled his dispute receiving 15 days wages per year of completed
service and not pursuing the appeal. All others were holding Managerial cadre.
No doubt, in the promotion letter, it is mentioned that ‘the terms and conditions
of service as found in the appointment order remains unchanged.’ This will not
refer to the nature of responsibilities and duties to be discharged by the
employees at the promoted post. The oral submission that the employees were
asked to discharge clerical work is contrary to documentary evidence, namely,
their promotion orders and further their retention of these employees at the
______________
Page Nos.63/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Corporate Office till the closure of M/s. Henkel operation on merger strengthens
the version of the Management that these employees had specialized skills in
the Managerial cadre, which was required at the Corporate office till its closure.
36. While examining whether an employee falls within the meaning
of 'Workman', it is not the nomenclature given to the Post he holds, but the
nature of duties and responsibilities has to considered. The documentary
evidence containing the service condition and the duties, is relevant to
determine whether the said employees been performing clerical work or
managerial work. When the documents indicate that they are discharging th e
functions of Managers and accountants, no amount of oral evidence contrary to
the documentary evidence can prevail without pleadings and proof. Further, we
find the Labour Commissioner, while considering the first part of the promotion
letter has failed to take note of the second part, which says the promotion is
subject to termination by either side by giving the other, a written notice of not
less than 90 days or 3 months basic pay in lieu of such notice. This part of the
document clinches the issue that the employees were promoted to a higher post
of Managerial cadre and their termination is subjected to three months notice or
basic pay in lieu of notice.
______________
Page Nos.64/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
37. The Appellate Authority has viewed that the appellants before him
(employees) are entitled to receive the benefits provided under Section 25F and
25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the Management did not comply with
the conditions laid down in Section 25FF. He has observed that the termination
of the services of the workmen, as a result of transfer of ownership from one
management to another management should be construed as retrenchment under
this Section (Section 25 FF) being a legal fiction.
38. The fallacies in the above said observation of the Appellate
Authority are of three-fold:
(a) First his conclusion that the appellants before him are workmen is
not on the proper appreciation of the promotion letters. Ignoring the fact that
they were promoted as Secretaries/Managers or Accountants. Going by
designation do not fall within the definition of workmen. Certainly the
designation is not a conclusive proof for deciding whether an employee is a
‘Workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
however if an employee designated as a Manager/Accountant etc., claims to be
a workman based on the nature of his duty and responsibilities, the employee
ought to have pleaded so and lead evidence in case his workman status is
controverted by the Management. In this case, such pleadings are
______________
Page Nos.65/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
conspicuously absent and the evidence is not adequate to prove these employees
were workmen. These 11 employees were at the Corporate Office, Chennai,
which was closed after the amalgamation. Except for one who was serving as a
driver, all others were holding managerial posts. It is reported that one person
pending appeal had settled his dispute with the Management and not pursuing
the matter further. To prove that they were carrying on only clerical work, there
is no pleading or documentary evidence. Only during the examination of
witnesses, it was deposed that they were continued to do the clerical work even
after their promotion as Accountants Managers. A fact asserted orally for the
first time in the enquiry, without pleading or evidence regarding their status is a
weak piece of evidence more so when it is contradictory to the documentary
evidence. In the promotion letters, it is stated that “the advancement will not
preclude you from performing duties as essentially and specifically required
by the Management at all times.” This condition wrongly construed as if it
means that the promoted employees were still a Workman without conferring
duties or responsibilities of Managerial cadre employees.
(b) The second fallacy in the order of the Appellate Authority is the
conclusion that the termination was due to the transfer of undertaking
simpliciter. In fact, the termination was not due to change of management
______________
Page Nos.66/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
alone, it was the consequence of closure of the Head Office at Chennai and
shifting the operations to the office at Bangalore. The fact remains, these
employees had challenged the termination and sought for reinstatement at
Karaikal factory, run by the subsidiary company of their employer M/s. Henkel
India Limited, a unit where predominant production activity was carried and
their administrative skill not required. Having found that the relief of
reinstatement in a different establishment, after closure of the establishment in
which they served cannot be sought, the relief been amended for grant of
severance compensation. Under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act,
severance compensation is payable only if the workman retrenched on account
of transfer of undertaking. Under Section 25F, the computation of the
compensation shall be 15 days wages for every completed year of service. It
will not apply in cases of closure of undertaking for the administrative reasons.
(c) The third fallacy is the application of the principle ‘legal fiction’
to construe the “termination” simpliciter as ‘retrenchment on transfer of
undertaking’. The Appellate Authority has lost sight of the fact that in this case,
the establishment at Chennai was closed and no operations from Chennai
carried on after the amalgamation. The identity of the erstwhile Management
______________
Page Nos.67/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
changed. As per the terms of the appointment, three months salary paid to all
these employees besides additional amount as ex-gratia .
39. Yet another flaw, we notice in the order of the Appellate
Authority is that the operations of the Corporate Office at Chennai closed and
shifted to Bangalore. However, the claim of these 11 employees to draw parity
with the employees who were transferred to the Karaikal factory and later
terminated and settled in terms of 12(3) settlement and 18(1) settlement was
accepted by the Appellate Authority on the doctrine of ‘Functional integrality’.
To apply the doctrine of functional integrality, the foremost requirement is the
unity of ownership, management and control. Between the two units there
must be a rule or practice of transferring from one unit to another and a common
seniority among the employees. To hold that, “Functional Integrality” existed
with the establishment at Karaikal and the Chennai Head Office, the employees
ought to have satisfied the test of a) Interdependency, which means, one unit
cannot survive without the other unit in respect of finance and operation. b)
Unity of ownership, control and employment.
40. In the instant case, there is no evidence of interdependency to
apply the doctrine of functional integrality. The Learned Single Judge had
______________
Page Nos.68/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
failed to examine the order of Appellate Authority in the light of the law and
facts. Relying on the disputed fact regarding the Management conceded for 65
days severance compensation and relying on the terms of settlement between
the workers in the Factory at Karaikal, severance compensation fixed with
reduced rate of interest purely on equity sans law and facts. The Learned Judge,
after holding that these employees will not fall within the definition of
‘Workman’, nevertheless modified the award fixing 65 days wages per
completed year of service as compensation with 6% interest. To this conclusion,
there is no plausible reason.
41. In view of the above discussion, the answers to the questions
framed are as below:
(i) The employees, who are respondents in the appeals filed by the
Management, are not Workmen as per the definition of Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
(ii) The compensation paid to them is as per the terms of appointment
and promotion letters. While considering the adequacy of compensation, we
find that under Section 41(2-B) of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act,
the Appellate Authority is empowered to direct the Management to pay
______________
Page Nos.69/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
compensation in lieu of reinstatement. This provision, came into effect on
01.04.2017, much after the termination order which is the subject matter of
these Writ Appeals. Even assuming that the said provision is to be taken into
consideration for extending the benefits to the employees, the said
compensation must be a fit compensation in the circumstances of the case. For
the said purpose, we can conveniently borrow the provisions under Section 25-F
of Industrial Disputes Act, which says in case of retrenchment of a workman, 15
days average pay of every completed year of service to be paid. Therefore, in
any case fixing 65 days pay for every year of completed service does not fit
either on facts or law. We, therefore, hold that the compensation paid is slightly
above the terms of the service conditions. At the same time, the fixation of
severance compensation on a higher side par with the workman of M/s.Henkel
India Limited is unjust and improper, since their status and character are not the
same. The adoption of the principle of ‘functional integrality’ in this case is an
apparent error of facts and is not sustainable.
42. As a result, the order of the Appellate Authority (Deputy
Commissioner of Labour), dated 16.12.2015 and the common order passed by
the Learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.8323 to 8344 of 2016, 30373 & 30380 of
______________
Page Nos.70/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
2018, dated 19.07.2023 are set aside.
43. The Employees are given liberty to seek for difference in the
compensation i.e., 15 days salary per year of completed service. If any request
from the employees to that effect made within 30 days from the date of receipt
of this order, same to be considered and paid along with 9% interest from the
date of termination till the date of this order as gesture of goodwill towards its
former employees since same will be in tune with Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act and Section 41 (2-B) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment
Act.
44. In fine, the Writ Appeals filed by the Management and the Writ
Appeals filed by the Employees are disposed of in terms of the above direction.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
( Dr . G.JAYACHANDRAN , J. )&( E. MANOHARAN, J. )
03-09-2026
Index :Yes.
Neutral Citation :Yes/No.
bsm
______________
Page Nos.71/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
W.A.Nos.2952 of 2023 etc., batch
& W.A.Nos.2664 of 2026 etc., batch
Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
&
E. MANOHARAN, J.
bsm
Pre-Delivery common judgment made in
W.A.No.2952 of 2023,
W.A.Nos.2960, 2938, 2939, 2940, 2941, 2943, 2944, 2945, 2946, 2948, 2949,
2950, 2951, 2953, 2954, 2955, 2956, 2957, 2958, 2959 & 2962 of 2023
and
W.A.Nos.2664, 2669, 2662, 2663, 2665, 2666, 2667, 2668, 2670, 2671, 2672 &
2673 of 2026
&
C.M.P.Nos.24435, 24433, 24451, 24453, 24456, 24459, 24460, 24463, 24471,
24472, 24474, 24475, 24478, 24479, 24484, 24488, 24499, 24555, 24439,
24442, 24447, 24448 of 2023, C.M.P.No.19696 of 2025
Judgment delivered on
03-09-2026
______________
Page Nos.72/72
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )