Madras High Court orders status quo on Foxconn issue
The company was renamed in 2013
Chennai: Employees of M/s FIH India Pvt.Limited, formerly known as Foxconn India Pvt.Ltd, have approached the Madras high court to restrain the state government from granting permission or approving the closure of the company.
They have sought a consequent direction to the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Labour to decide their applications submitted under the Industrial Disputes Act with regard to their retrenchment by the company.
Justice C. S. Karnan before whom the petitions filed by K. Udhayakumar and four others came up for hearing, ordered that status quo as on date be maintained and issued notice, returnable by June 15, to the state government and the company.
According to petitioner, FIH India was an international technology conglomerate proof from Greater China and it was engaged in the business of contract electronics manufacture of computers, consumer electronics, telecommunications, automatic electronics, digital contents and channel business. In Sriperumbudur units, 3,500 employees were working in the company for manufacturing electronics and cellphone accessories. The company was renamed as FIH-Foxconn International in 2013.
The petitioners were appointed as trainee operators. The company was running in profit. Now, the company’s name has been changed for extraneous reasons. While so, the company was closed on February 10, 2015, without any mandatory procedures contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act. The company called upon the workmen to receive the severance compensation as decided by it.
The conciliation proceedings initiated by the authorities have failed. Some unions participated in the settlement proceedings held with the company without the consent of the employees and against the resolution for increasing the severance compensation.
Thereafter, the company decided to terminate all the employees without following any norms under the ID Act. Due to some extraneous reasons, the employees were retrenched without providing any opportunity and against the ID Act.