TCS revokes termination order of woman staff; another employee moves court

Our Bureaus Updated - January 24, 2018 at 03:00 PM.

Tata Consultancy Services has revoked the termination of a pregnant employee ‘citing it as an exceptional case.’

The employee, Sasirekha Thangavel, had approached the Madras High Court last week after the company informed her on December 22, 2014, that her services will be terminated with effect from January 21. The court ordered a four-week interim injunction restraining TCS.

Thangavel’s petition came under the spotlight as it was filed in the backdrop of reports of large-scale retrenchment by TCS.

The petitioner, quoting news reports, had said that TCS has decided to terminate the services of 25,000 workers to cut cost.

However, TCS had clarified that it has not initiated and was not planning to initiate any large scale exits.

The petitioner’s counsel Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan told BusinessLine that the company today gave a letter to Thangavel revoking her termination.

The company’s counsel also informed Justice R Subbiah that the termination order had been revoked.

Recording the statement, the judge closed the case.

The letter said that “taking into consideration your [petitioner] statement made in the affidavit filed in the court that you are pregnant, the company has decided to revoke the letter dated December 22, 2014 ‘relieving you from employment’, as an exceptional case, in line with our practice of exempting employees who are pregnant from being relieved,’ the counsel said. According to a TCS spokesperson, Sasirekha had not informed the company of her condition during the exit process. TCS, while disputing that the employees are workmen within the Industrial Disputes Act, decided to revoke the letter terminating her service, as an exceptional case, in line with its practice of not relieving any employees during pregnancy.

Second case

Meanwhile, taking a precedent from Thangavel, a male employee of TCS, who was terminated by the company on the same day, has also approached the court.

The petitioner’s counsel said that the management did not give any notice of retrenchment as required under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Published on January 20, 2015 17:23