Abruptly Blocking Employee's Smart Card Access To Terminate Him Violates Basic Dignity Of Labour: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that a company abruptly blocking an employee's smart card access to terminate him from work violates the basic dignity of labour. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that people in managerial positions should take a more empathetic approach and think from the employee's point of view. The court added that such an abrupt termination violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Protection of Human Rights Act. “Those in management positions must adopt an empathetic approach, putting themselves in the shoes of these employees. Merely because these companies have a Smart Card Access System for entry into the office, the said security system cannot be used as a means of terminating services. Such abrupt turnaways at the gate directly violate the basic dignity of labour. It breaches the right to fair working conditions and protections against employment guaranteed under Article 23(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that forms part of Human Rights as defined under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993,” the court said. The court was hearing a petition filed by the management of Cognizant Technology Solutions challenging an order of the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Minimum Wages) by which a dismissal order issued by the company against an employee was set aside. Background The employee, KN Naresh, was appointed in the company on January 2000 and was duly discharging his duties. While so, on 18 April 2018, a show cause notice was issued to him alleging that his performance was low, amounting misconduct and questioning why a disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. The employee submitted his reply explaining that no suitable roles were being assigned to him. Following this the HR Talent Manager called upon the employee and advised him to go on leave, which the employee did. When the employee came back from leave, he found that his access ID to enter the office premises was blocked and a sum of Rs 5 Lakh was credited to his account. The employee issued a legal notice and there after appealed against the dismissal. The appellate authority, i.e., the Joint Commissioner of Labour ruled in favour of the employee, against which the present petition was filed by the company management. The management argued that repeated notices were sent to the employee, and finally the order of termination was passed. The management argued that the appellate authority had ruled on the basis that the termination was not properly informed to the employee, and had not gone into the merits of the charge against the employee. It was argued that even if the company's case is not accepted on merits, it was only a case of awarding compensation and the authority could not have ordered reinstatement with back wages. The employee, on the other hand, argued that the management's case was riddled with contradictions. He submitted that he had submitted his explanation to the show cause notice and it was upon the advice of the HR that he had gone on leave. He submitted that after serving the company for such a long period, his access card was abruptly blocked, violating his basic rights. The court noted that though the management claimed to have repeated communication to the employee, it had not produced any document to evidence the same. The court noted that the management's case remained unacceptable and the only allegation against the employee was for underperformance. The court also noted that the employee had put in 18 years of service and the least expected from the management was to at least summon him before a superior office, serve termination order and send him out. In the present case however, the court noted that the management had abruptly blocked the employee's access card, denying him entry to the office. Thus, noting that it was not a case to exercise the court's extraordinary power to grant relief to the management, the court dismissed the plea. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Gupta Ravi, Senior Counsel for Mr. C. Manohar Gupta Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A. M. Ayyadurai, Government Advocate, Mr. N. Suresh Case Title: The Vice President v. Joint Commissioner of Labour and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 144 Case No: W.P.No.517 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Abruptly Blocking Employee's Smart Card Access To Terminate Him Violates Basic Dignity Of Labour: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags