Madras HC Orders Full Rs 2,000 Wage Hike For 451 TASMAC Staff Punished For MRP Violations, With Arrears From April 2026

TASMAC’s circular dated 14 July 2025 granted a monthly wage increase of ₹2,000 to shop personnel generally, but limited the increase to ₹1,000 for 451 personnel reported to have committed MRP violations of ₹10 or more.

The respondent stated that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against those personnel and that punishments had been imposed.

The petitioner Sangam challenged the reduced increase as arbitrary and discriminatory, seeking parity and arrears from 1 April 2025.

During the proceedings, the respondent issued a further circular dated 13 July 2026 concerning the earlier ₹1,000 increase; the Court noted that its implementation was stated to take effect from 1 April 2026.

The Court applied the principles of equal treatment and non-arbitrariness, holding that the wage increase for TASMAC shop personnel must be uniform and that a differential reduction cannot be justified merely by an administrative report of misconduct.

Where an employee is alleged to have violated prescribed norms, any punishment affecting the employee’s wages must be imposed through disciplinary proceedings in accordance with applicable rules and employment terms.

The Court further held that a discriminatory wage revision could not be retained as an additional punishment after disciplinary punishment had already been imposed.

No specific precedent or statutory provision was cited as the basis for these propositions.

The Court accepted that the petitioner Sangam could represent affected employees, including those who were not its members.

It found that TASMAC had reduced the increase for the 451 personnel on the basis of reports concerning MRP violations, rather than through the wage-revision mechanism following disciplinary proceedings.

Once the respondent confirmed that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and punishments imposed, maintaining the lower wage increase would impose a further consequence for the same misconduct.

The Court therefore treated the differential increase as arbitrary and discriminatory.

Although the writ petition was formally recorded as dismissed, it was dismissed “on the above terms”; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.