Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 31/08/2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: K.A. Ramasamy, Employee ID 000277075, residing at B‑310, M.V. Periwinkle, Rocal Enclave, Sree Ramapura, Jakkar, Bangalore.
  • Respondents: (1) Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District; (2) Management of BNY Mellon International Operations (Indian) Pvt Ltd, Block 3, 6th Floor, DLF IT Park, Mount Poonamallee Road, Ramapuram, Chennai 600089.
  • Petition No.: Writ Petition No. 5540 of 2022 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
  • Prayer: Issuance of writ of certiorari and mandamus to call records from the Labour Court, Kancheepuram (order dated 29/10/2021, I.D. No. 52 of 2020), quash that order, reinstate petitioner, and award back wages and compensation, alleging that his dismissal/forced resignation dated 21/05/2018 violated Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
  • Employment Details: Appointed Senior Training Consultant on 04/11/2013. Took leave from 18/04/2018 to 20/05/2018 to care for ailing father and purportedly rejoined on 28/05/2018. Management allegedly forced his resignation on 21/05/2018.
  • Procedural History: Petitioner approached the Labour Commissioner under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act; conciliation failed; an industrial dispute was filed. Labour Court dated 29/10/2021 dismissed relief, holding that the petitioner’s post was a management post and he did not fall within the definition of “workman”. The Court also noted the petitioner had resigned and only raised the dispute on 28/07/2019, more than a year later.
  • Key Arguments: Petitioner’s counsel argued the duties were technical, not managerial, citing S.K. Mains v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd (AIR 1994 SC 1824). Respondent’s counsel contended the duties were supervisory and salary exceeded Rs 10,000, disqualifying him as a workman.
  • Evidence Presented: Resignation letter dated 21/05/2018 stating personal reasons; acceptance of resignation on the same day; email dated 22/05/2018 requesting processing of three‑month notice salary; three months’ salary paid and accepted by petitioner. No document indicated protest or coercion.
  • Court’s Reasoning: No material evidence of force or coercion; the 14‑month delay in approaching the Labour Commissioner undermines the claim of forced resignation; the petitioner's duties, even if technical, do not preclude classification as a workman, but the resignation was voluntary and the Labour Court’s finding on non‑workman status stands.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed in its entirety.
  • No costs are awarded to either party.

Topics: Labour Law, Industrial Disputes, Employment Litigation