Madras High Court
M/S.Nsk Bearings India Pvt Ltd vs The Special Joint Commissioner Of ... on 26 August, 2025
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
W.P.No.8861 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 23.07.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.P.No.8861 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.9398, 26258 & 26260 of 2021
1.M/s.NSK Bearings India Pvt Ltd
2nd Floor, Block I, TVH Beliciaa Towers,
NO. 71/1, MRC Nagar Main Road,
MRC Nagar, Chennai- 600 028.
Rep by its Authorised Signatory Natarajan.L
Formerly Known as.
NSK India Sales Company Pvt Ltd,
6th floor, Bannari Amman Towers,
29, Dr.Radhakrishnan salai, Mylapore,Chennai- 600 004.
2.M/s. NSK Ltd,
1-6-3 Ohsaki,
Shingawa-Ku,
Tokyo 141- 8560
Japan. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour
(The Appellate Authority
under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947),
Teynampet Chennai- 600 006.
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
W.P.No.8861 of 2021
2.S.Nivas ...Respondents
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records
and quash the order dated 14.12.2020 passed in TNSE- I/ 4/ 2015 on
the file of the 1st Respondent, The Special Joint Commissioner of
Labour, (Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and
Establishments Act, 1947), Chennai-6.
For Petitioner :M/s.S.Ravi, Senior Counsel for
M/s. Gupta and Ravi
For Respondents :
(for R1) : M/s.M.Murali, Govt. Advocate
(for R2) : M/s.K.Sridhar
for M/s.K. Sridhar Associates
ORDER
Challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent in his
proceedings dated 14.12.2020 in TNSE-I/4/2015 the petitioner
company is before this Court.
Facts of the Case:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
2. The short facts as narrated in the affidavit filed in support of
the Writ Petition are as follows:-
3. The 1st petitioner company is engaged in the manufacturing
and selling/trading in all types of bearings for automotive and
industrial applications. The 2nd petitioner company is incorporated in
Japan and is the parent company of the 1st petitioner company.
4. The petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent was
employed as an Engineer Sales Support on probation under an offer of
employment dated 19.04.2011. After the successful completion of his
probation period his services were confirmed on 15.07.2011. He was
deputed to undergo training for a period of 2 years in the Fujisawa
Technical Centre in Japan in March 2012.
5. On 19.04.2013, an anonymous mail was received by 29
employees of the 1st petitioner company including the 2nd respondent
in its official e-mail ID. This mail was sent out from an e-mail ID
called [email protected]. The e-mail contained a single
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
statement “this is the fair appraisal from the Management” and had the
1st petitioner’s confidential file named “salary revision - April 2013
xls.” as an attachment. This attachment has been taken from the NSK
file server in Japan using an NSK e-mail ID. Since there was every
likelihood of the misuse causing disharmony amongst the employees
an investigation was conducted and from out of this investigation it
came to light that the 2nd respondent had transmitted the file
containing the confidential and sensitive information from the 2nd
petitioner’s server onto another server (Gmail) from his official e-mail
account [email protected] to his personal e-mail account
[email protected]. The investigation would further reveal that the
the 2nd respondent had accessed the confidential and sensitive
information, transferred it to his personal e-mail account and
thereafter forwarded it to the employees of the 1st petitioner company
using an anonymous e-mail. The petitioner would submit that at this
relevant point in time the 2nd respondent was undergoing training at
NSK’s Fujisawa Technical Centre in Japan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
6. By an e-mail dated 22.04.2013, addressed to his Manager
Mr.Imamura, who was stationed at Chennai, the 2nd respondent had
complained that his salary was not commensurate to his qualification
and experience whereas the employees who were joined the services
of the company much later and who are less qualified were earning a
higher salary package. He had also referred to the anonymous e-mail.
7. It is the case of the 1st petitioner that the 2nd respondent had
accessed the confidential and sensitive information, transferred it to
his personal e-mail account and thereafter forwarded it to the
employees of the 1st petitioner company using an anonymous e-mail.
In fact, the petitioners had set out in para.no.7 of the affidavit filed in
support of this Writ Petition, the manner in which their server could be
accessed. It is their case that the confidential information of NSK
Group is stored in the main server in Japan. This information can be
accessed by all the authorized constituents throughout the world which
includes the employees who are provided with individual terminals.
The heart of the information system is located in Japan where it
houses its “server based data centre” one of which is NSK e-mail
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
service.
8. The petitioners would submit that all their employees used
this server enabled e-mail system to communicate and they are
supported with a centralized network access file server for storing the
information. Every employee is authorized to access this file server by
using uniquely allocated user ID’s and passwords and by using this
unique ID password the file server located in Japan can be accessed
from any part of the world.
9. It is the contention of the petitioners that the information
stored in this file server is confidential and is the exclusive property of
the petitioner company. Though the employees could use the same for
official purposes during the tenure of their employment, they are
strictly prohibited from downloading/copying/transferring the
information to any server and system which does not belong to NSK
Groups. All the files related to NSK’s intellectual properties and files
related to their official business are stored on the NSK network server.
As part of the NSK information security, details of all the transactions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
that happen within the file server and e-mail server can be archived
and retrieved at any moment of need thereby ensuring that
misuse/unauthorized downloading or transferring NSK confidential
information can be traced back with details of exact time of
transmission along with e-mail ID to which the data has been
transmitted.
10. The petitioners would submit that when accosted the 2nd
respondent had admitted the act and he was asked to resign. However,
he refused to do so. Therefore, he was served with a show cause notice
dated 29.04.2013 and with effect from the said date he was exempted
from duty with a right to receive full wages and other benefits so as to
enable him to look out for an alternate employment and to enable him
to voluntarily leave the services of the petitioner company before
31.07.2013. The 2nd respondent, in his reply dated 02.05.2013, made
false insinuations against his superiors and also alleged that he was
being forced to resign. The reply was found to be unsatisfactory and
consequently by order dated 26.07.2013, his services were terminated
by paying him salary for the notice period i.e. up to 30.09.2013. By a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
letter dated 30.07.2018, the 2nd respondent sought time to explain
himself and after the opportunity was granted and his explanation
received, the same was found unsatisfactory. Therefore, the
termination was confirmed.
11. Challenging the order of termination dated 26.07.2013, the
2nd respondent had preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent under
Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act. In the
said appeal, the petitioner has impleaded the 2nd petitioner who is an
unnecessary party to the proceedings. In the said appeal a detailed
counter was also filed by the 1st petitioner denying the allegations
made by the 2nd respondent.
12. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent had filed I.A. No. 3 of 2016,
seeking to refer certain issues to the Forensic Sciences Department of
the Government of Tamil Nadu for their expert opinion. This IA was
allowed by order dated 19.07.2016. Pursuant to which, the Forensic
Sciences Department had submitted its report dated 30.09.2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
expressing an opinion that the contents of the compact disc (filed by
the petitioners containing digital e-mail exchange recorded on 17 and
18 April 2013 through the official e-mail ID of the 2nd respondent)
were reported to have shown that on 17.04.2013 the 2nd respondent
had downloaded from his official e-mail to his personal e-mail and
again on 19.04.2013 the said e-mail was forwarded to 29 official e-
mails of other employees.
13. The petitioners would submit that though the Forensic
Sciences Department had not given a direct answer, however, their
reply was sufficient to establish a nexus between the 2nd respondent
and the petitioner company’s server conveying the salary particulars to
the official e-mails of the 29 employees.
14. Ultimately, by order dated 16.05.2018, the 1st respondent
without giving any opportunity to the petitioners, closed the evidence
and passed an order setting aside the order of termination and
directing reinstatement of the 2nd respondent with full back wages and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
continuity of service. Challenging the same, the petitioners had filed
WP.No.2758 of 2019 before this Court and by order dated 28.08.2019,
the Writ Petition was allowed and the order passed by the 1st
respondent dated 16.05.2018 was set aside and the matter was
remanded back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration after
providing an opportunity to both parties.
15. After the remand, since the incumbent authority is the
husband of the previous authority who had passed the order dated
16.05.2018, which was set aside by this Hon'ble Court, the petitioners
had filed a memo dated 12.09.2020 before the Commissioner of
Labour for transferring the appeal to the file of any other Joint
Commissioner of Labour which was objected to by the 2nd
respondent. The 1st respondent by order dated 29.09.2020 conveyed
the decision of the Commissioner of Labour that the proceedings
could be continued before the incumbent the 1st respondent himself.
16. On 14.12.2020, after examining the witnesses and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
considering the evidence available on record, the 1st respondent had
ultimately, passed an order directing reinstatement with backwages
and continuity of service. Challenging the same, the petitioners are
before this Court.
17. The 2nd respondent had filed a detailed counter denying the
allegation that he had clandestinely disclosed confidential information
relating to the salaries of 29 employees of the 1st petitioner company.
He would also submit that on 20.10.2013 he has been summarily
thrown out of employment without affording an opportunity. The 2nd
respondent would further submit that by letter dated 28.10.2013 he
had informed the petitioner company that he was seeking legal
redressal through Court. In response, by letter dated 31.10.2013, the
petitioner company stated that, irrespective of the outcome, they
would not permit the 2nd respondent to continue in service. The 2nd
respondent would also contend that the body of the e-mail which is
alleged to be the offending one has not been displayed and therefore
there is nothing to show the source.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
18. The 2nd respondent would further submit that even the
expert witness has not given any material finding. That apart, the
compact disc which is an electronic record is not admissible in
evidence unless it fully complies with the conditions prescribed under
Section 65 B of the India Evidence Act and should be accompanied
with the mandatory Certificate prescribed for that purpose. The expert
witness has deposed that he cannot comment as to whether the e-mail
has been forwarded to the 29 e-mail addresses. He would contend that
in the absence of the IP address the person who has sent the e-mail
cannot be identified and remains anonymous. Therefore, he would
seek the dismissal of the above Writ Petition.
Submissions:-
19. The main argument that has been advanced on the side of the
petitioners by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.S.Ravi is that the 2 nd
respondent had signed a confidentiality agreement on 19.04.2011
when he had been appointed to the petitioner’s company. Clause 11 of
the said agreement clearly defines what constitutes confidential
information and outlines the nature of confidentiality expected from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
an employee. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that it is this clause that has been breached by the 2 nd respondent as a
result of which the petitioner company had lost confidence in the 2nd
respondent. He further submitted that the salaries paid to the
employees were not uniform, and by disclosing these details among
the employees, the 2nd respondent had caused discontent within the
workforce. The forensic report obtained clearly implicates the 2nd
respondent and therefore the order dismissing him from service is well
founded. He would further submit that once the company had lost
confidence in the 2nd respondent the petitioner cannot be compelled
to reinstate him into service.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the
following judgements in this regard:-
i. Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P.P.Chopra – (1969) 3
SCC 653
ii. Francis Klein & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Workmen – (1972) 4 SCC
iii. Air India Corporation Vs. V.A.Rebellow – (1972) 1 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
iv. Hindustan Steels Ltd. Vs. A.K.Roy – (1969) 3 SCC 513
v. Anil Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Saraswatipur Tea Co. Ltd. –
(1982) 2 SCC 328
vi. Air Lanka Ltd. Vs. John William Nanthan – 1990 SCC
Online Mad 864.
vii. Karnataka SRTC Vs. M.G.Vittal Rao – (2012) 1 SCC 442
viii. Mangatu J.Vergese Vs. Daulatram Dyeing and Bleaching
Mills. – 2000 SCC Online Bom 257.
ix. Management of Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd. Vs.
Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court - 2004 SCC Online
Mad 538.
21. Per contra, Mr.K.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the 2nd respondent would submit that the petitioner has not
made out any case whatsoever to show that the 2nd respondent has
been responsible for the transmission of the confidential information
and therefore the 1st respondent has rightly allowed the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
Discussion:-
22. The main argument that has been canvassed by the petitioner
management is that the 2nd respondent had indulged in transferring
confidential information and therefore the petitioner management lost
confidence in the 2nd respondent and in these circumstances, the order
directing reinstatement is erroneous and has to be set aside. The
defence is that the 2nd respondent has not shared any confidential
information and that he has been summarily dismissed without any
enquiry. That apart, the petitioner has not been able to prove that the
e-mail which is the genesis for the proceeding has been transferred by
the 2nd respondent.
23. In order to appreciate the rival arguments, it would be
necessary to sequence the grievance starting from the transfer of the
mail and the e-mail address from which the same has been done.
(i) On 17.04.2013, at around 03.39 PM an e-mail had been
forwarded from [email protected] to Nivas s. The said mail only
contains the reference to the attachment, which is shown as
“SALARY REVISION APRIL 2013.xls; BOOK 1.xls; Organisation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
Chart 20130201.ppt. However, the attachment is not displayed in the
email.
(ii) On 19.04.2013, at around 10:47 AM, an e-mail had been
sent from [email protected] to nivas s. The contents of the mail are 29
e-mail addresses.
(iii) The next mail is also dated 19.04.2013 at 01:24 PM and the
mail is sent from [email protected] to the 29 e-mail addresses.
This e-mail contains an attachment titled "SALARY REVISION
APRIL 2013.xls". The body of the mail contains just one sentence
which is as follows " This is the fair appraisal from the management".
(iv) Thereafter the next mail is dated 22.04.2013 which is a mail
sent by [email protected] to Imamura with the copy mark to
[email protected]. The following is the subject of the mail, "JUST
sharing my grievance" and the body of the mail contains a letter in an
by which the 2nd respondent has informed the management that by an
anonymous e-mail source all concerned have come to know what he is
being paid.
24. On 25.04.2013, it is seen that the Manager HR has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent stating that on the basis of the
investigation carried out by their Global IT, they have come to learn
that the confidential information has been accessed by the 2nd
respondent and transferred to his personal e-mail. Since the allegation
was serious, it required further investigation and therefore, his training
in Japan was terminated and he was asked to return to Chennai. This is
followed by a “Confidential Information Leakage Report” dated
27.04.2013 prepared by one Saravanan, IT Manager of the petitioner
company and addressed to the President and the IT Head of the
petitioner company.
25. Thereafter, on 29.04.2013, the petitioner had issued a show
cause notice to the 2nd respondent asking him to show cause about the
accessing and circulation of the confidential information. The show
cause notice refers to the offer of employment dated 19.04.2011 and
states that the Clause 11 therein has been breached by the 2nd
respondent. However, along with the report of the forensic lab, five
Annexures have been attached. Annexure I contains the e-mail dated
19.04.2013 sent from [email protected] to the 29 addressees
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
which have been sent at 10:54:26 AM and received at 10:54:34 AM.
Annexure II is an e-mail dated 21.07.2015 and a reply of the same
date relating to an exchange of messages between the officials of the
petitioner company regarding the manner in which the confidential
information can be secured. Annexure III is the e-mail dated
22.04.2013 which was sent by the 2nd respondent to Mr.Imamura
sharing his grievance. Annexure IV is the e-mail dated 17.04.2013,
attaching the Salary Revision April 2013.xls. This e-mail also displays
e-mail ID to which the mail had been sent. However, the e-mail dated
17.04.2013 which is enclosed at page 10 of the typed set of papers
does not display this e-mail address and only displays "nivas s".
Annexure V is the e-mail dated 19.04.2013 transferring 29 e-mail
addresses from [email protected] to nivas s.
26. A perusal of these e-mails as also the forensic report does
not explain or clarify the following factors:-
(i) The e-mail address from which the confidential information
has been transferred.
(ii) The anonymous e-mail transferring the addresses has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
received by MW.1 on 19.04.2013 itself based on which the petitioner
management would state that the investigation had taken place at their
Japan office. However, none of the documents showing the
investigation relating to the transfer of these details in the form of a
digital trail has been produced.
(iii) Though M.W.1 would state that he has received the
anonymous e-mail along with other addresses his device has not been
submitted for forensic examination.
27. These are the glaring discrepancies which has not been
explained by the petitioner company. No doubt, this Court exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go
into the evidence. However, when obvious facts have not been
explained the Court can look into the same. The petitioner, has
produced only the CD in which the messages/emails have been
copied. Therefore, this is not the original device to which the mail has
first copied. The original IP address from which the e-mail has been
emanated has not been tracked and there is nothing to link it to the IP
Address of the 2nd respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
28. A perusal of the e-mails that have been sent to the
employees by the management starting from 19.04.2013, only states
that confidential information has been hacked and maliciously
circulated through an anonymous e-mail ID and that the petitioner
management would take steps to identify the hacker. However, none
of the e-mails thereafter has specifically described the e-mail ID from
which the original mail had been forwarded. In fact, in a mail dated
24.04.2013, sent from the Japan Office to Saravanan, it is stated that a
particular user log ID which has been looked into does not show any
suspicious behavior. Therefore, as rightly held by the 1st respondent,
the petitioner company has not been able to establish that it is the 2nd
respondent who has indulged in the sharing of the confidential
information. Further, the forensic report that been filed also does not
support the case of the petitioner.
29. In a mail dated 24.04.2013 sent at 9.44 AM from
Mr.Shimamoto Osamu to Mr.Saravanan, the said Simamoto informs
Mr.Saravanan that they require an official approval to proceed with
the IT forensic and to disclose the information. In this e-mail they are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
stating that they are working to extract the logs (A log is a file or
record containing information about activities in a computer system).
However, the letter dated 25.04.2013 in and by which the petitioner
was recalled from Japan there is a categoric statement that based on
the investigation carried out by their Global IT, it was the 2nd
respondent who had accessed the confidential information and
transferred the same to his personal e-mail ID. The mail referred
above, i.e. 24.04.2013 however indicates that the investigation was yet
to be concluded. That being the case on the very next date i.e;
25.04.2013, the petitioner management has issued the letter
categorically holding the 2nd respondent liable. As already stated, the
investigation details have not been placed before the 1st respondent or
this Court for consideration. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner
management have not been able to prove that the confidential
information has been shared by the 2nd respondent.
30. The order of termination suffers from the vice of not only
arbitrariness but also malafides and is a pre-determined one. Even
before the show cause notice dated 29.04.2013 was issued the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
petitioner has found the 2nd respondent guilty which is evident from
the contents of the letter dated 25.04.2013 which is discussed supra.
Further, even the show cause notice pins the blame upon the 2nd
respondent. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the petitioner
management has already held the 2nd respondent guilty and the show
cause notice was merely a lip service.
31. The show cause notice has been issued on the ground that
the 2nd respondent had violated Clause 11 of the offer of appointment
dated 19.04.2011. It would be useful to extract the said clause. Clause
11 of the offer of employment would read as follows:-
11. General
You are to devote your whole time, attention
and ability to the interest of the Company.
You are to treat as strictly confidential the
affairs of the Company and its customers of which
you may be cognizant and particularly any and all
knowledge, information, know-how, trade secrets
and data, whether technical, non-technical or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
computer-generated (including, but not limited to
drawings, sketches, plans, documents, quotations,
specifications, etc., and any information obtained
from these).
You are not to interest yourself in any business or
do any trading on your own account.
You will be governed by the rules and regulations
of the company in matters of conduct and discipline
and carryout all lawful orders of the Management
and Superiors of the company.
Breach of any of the conditions above will render
you liable to termination of your employment
without notice."
32. A reading of this clause would clearly show that the sharing
of address or salary details do not come within the category of
confidential information as set out in clause 11 of the offer of
employment. The 2nd respondent having categorically denied
downloading and sharing the alleged confidential information, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
onus is on the petitioner management to prove the same, in this
endeavour the petitioner has miserably failed.
32. From a perusal of the records it is clearly seen that the
petitioner management has not followed the provisions of Section
41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947
(hereinafter called as the "TNSE Act") before terminating the 2nd
respondent. Section 41 (1) of the TNSE Act would read as follows:-
41. (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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
33. A reading of the aforesaid provisions would clearly show
that the employer cannot dispense with the services of a employee
without a reasonable cause and without giving such person one
month's notice or wage in lieu of such notice. This Section further
states that the notice would not be necessary only where service of the
person is dispensed with on a charge of mis-conduct supported by
satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held for the purpose.
Therefore, the provisions of the TNSE Act stipulates that before
dispensing with the services of an employee he has to be given notice
and an enquiry has to be held, which in the instant case has admittedly
not been conducted. A show cause notice has been issued on
29.04.2013 to which the petitioner has sent a detailed reply on
02.05.2013. The explanation in the said reply has not been taken into
consideration which is evident from a perusal of the letter dated
06.05.2013 sent by the petitioner management to the 2nd respondent
and thereafter by a letter dated 02.08.2013 his services has been
terminated. Therefore, the dismissal order has been rightly set aside by
the 1st respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
34. The petitioner management would submit that the order
directing reinstatement is erroneous since the petitioner management
had lost confidence in the 2nd respondent and therefore they cannot be
compelled to reinstate the 2nd respondent. In support of this argument
the petitioner management has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P.P.Chopra –(1969)
3 SCC 653.
(ii) Air India Corporation Vs. V.A.Rebellow – (1972) 1 SCC
(iii) Anil Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Saraswatipur Tea Co. Ltd. –
(1982) 2 SCC 328.
(iv) Karnataka SRTC Vs. M.G.Vittal Rao – (2012) 1 SCC 442.
35. In the judgment of reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442 -
Karnataka SRTC Vs. M.G.Vittal Rao, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
was considering the order passed by a division bench reinstating the
employee into service despite the fact that he had been found guilty of
cutting a Padlock of the cash room and removing cash from the chest.
A departmental enquiry was conducted and criminal proceedings were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
also initiated. Although the employee was acquitted in the criminal
case, he was found guilty in the departmental enquiry and was
subsequently dismissed from service. The Management had taken a
plea that the order of the division bench directing reinstatement was
erroneous in as much as they had lost confidence in the employee and
therefore they cannot be compelled to reinstate the employee into
service. The learned Judges had referred to the judgment reported in
2001 9 SCC page 609 - Kanhaiyalal Agrawal Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co.
Ltd.. wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down the test for
loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was a bonafide loss
of confidence in the employee. The learned Judges had held the
following to be the test :-
(i) The workman is holding a position of trust and confidence.
(ii) by abusing the position he commits an act which results in
forfeiting the same.
(iii) to continue him in service would be embarrassing and
inconvenient to the employer or would be detrimental to the discipline
or security of the establishment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
36. The learned Judges observed that loss of confidence cannot
be subjective based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts
that would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of
the management regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the
employee must be alleged and proved.
37. If this test were to be applied to the instant case, though the
allegation has been made that the 2nd respondent is guilty of sharing
confidential information, there is nothing to prove that it was he who
was guilty of the same. Therefore, without proving the same, the loss
of confidence pleaded is purely is in the mind and a perceived
apprehension of the petitioner management. Further, as already held
the confidential information which is shared does not come within the
category of confidential information as described in clause 11 of the
offer of employment.
38. Therefore, in the absence of proof, the petitioner cannot
dilate on the defence of loss of confidence to set aside the order passed
by the 1st respondent. Accordingly, I see no reason to interfere with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
the well considered order passed by the 1st respondent.
39. In fine, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
26.08.2025
(shr)
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour
(The Appellate Authority
under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947),
Teynampet Chennai- 600 006.
P.T. ASHA. J.,
(shr)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
and
W.M.P.Nos.9398, 26258 & 26260 of 2021
.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 02:37:22 pm )
