Gv Raghava Reddy, Hyderabad and 1 Other Vs the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and 3 Others

¶1

I^3304I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 35426 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

G.V.Raghava Reddy S/o.Ram Reddy, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o-Flat No.301, Dwarakamayi Sai Apartments Siri Enclave, Kolanu Narayana Reddy Colony Nizampet Village, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 096.

¶9

Ravikumar Dharmavarapu S/o.Subba Rao, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.Komminenivaripalem Prakasham District, Andhra Pradesh - 523 260.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab-lv) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶13

2 The Commissioner of Labour, Government of Telangana Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC X Roads Hyderabad.

¶14

J The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Government of Telangana Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC X Roads Hyderabad.

¶15

4 Tech Mahindra, Represented by its Chief Operating Officer lnfocity, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of the 3'd Respondent in discharging petitioner duties under the lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 in resolving the dispute between the petitioners and the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 3'd respondent to exercise the

¶18

:rij::B '"

¶19

powers available under Section 10 of the lndustrial Disputes Acl, 1947 to initiate conciliation proceedings.

¶20

t.A. NO 1 OF 201(WPMP. NO: 44010 OF 20171

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3'd Respondent to initiate conciliation proceedings in exercise of powers available under lndustrial Disputes Acl, 1947, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. JURISLIT LAW LLP

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR LABOUR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SMT. MOGILI ANAVENI

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

J

¶27

-.^'e,ZPW'f ri - .-. .'1:, ._::r r...

-t-

I

TH o L I sTI^EN AV

ON N^o.3426oF2oL7 w RIT^P

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This^{Writ Petitionis filed seeking the following relief :}

¶34

.'..'folssueanappropria€Writ,orderorDirection more^{particulartyone inthe nature of Writ of} Mandamus,^{declaring the inactionon the part of the} j,dRespondentindischarginghisdutiesunderthe Industrial^{Disputes Act' 1947 in resolving the dispute} between^{the petitioners and the 4th respondentas}

¶35

illegat,^{arbitrarY and consequently direct the 3'd} respondent^{toexercisethe powers availableunder} Section^{10 ofthe Industriat Disputes Act' 1947 to}

¶36

initiate^{conciliationproceedingsand pass such other} order^{or orders as the Hon'bleCourt maY deem fit}

¶37

and^{proper in the circumstances of the case'"}

¶38

Heard^{M/s lurislit LawLLP' learned counsel for the petitioners'} and^{the learned GovernmentPleaderfor Labour'appearingfor the} respondents'^{Perused the material available on record'}

¶39

The brief^{facts of thecase are that the Petitioners} were ondent^{No.4 - Tech Mahindra - havingrendered} emPloYees^{of resP} for^{nearly10 years'It is alleged that respondent} continuous^service ue^{pressureon the petitionersto resign without} No.4^{exerted und} issuing^{anY forma} lterminationorders,communicatingonlythrough

¶40

{^I

¶41

2

¶42

telephonic instructions. petitioner No.1 was terminated through a backend process while on sanctioned leave, using his login credentials without consent. petitioner No.2 was s im ila rly terminated while on medical leave by way of a letter sent to his native address.

¶43

It is further case of the petitioners that aggrieved by the said illegal and arbitrary termination, the petitioners approached respondent No.3 - the Joint Commissioner of Labour, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, seeking protection and initiation of conciliation proceedings. But, the respondent No.3 did not initiate any conciriation proceedings nor referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, tg47 Instead, respondent No.3 merely forwarded the remarks received from respondent No.4 to the petitioners and advised them to approach the Labour Court independenUy.

¶44

It is further case of the petitioners that despite repeated representatio n s, respondent No.3 failed to discharge the statutory duties vested in him even after the operation of G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 21.06.2013 had been stayed by this Hon,ble Court, thereby restoring his jurisdiction under the Telangana Shops and

¶45

1

¶46

Establishments^{Act, 1988'Aggrieved by the same' the petitioners} filed the Present^{Writ Petition'}

¶47

Learned^{counselfor the petitioners submitsthat a dispute} arose^{betweenthe petitionersand respondent No 4 -TechMahindra} andthatthematterwasplacedbeforerespondentNo.3-the]oint No.3 did^{not refer} Commissioner^{of Labour' However' respondent} 10 of the^Industrial the matter^{to the LabourCourt underSection} Disputes^{Acl, 1947. He accordingly prays that the presentWrit} Petition^{may be disposed of by grantingliberty to the petitionersto} approach^{the Labour Courtfor appropriaterelief'}

¶48

Learned^{Government Pleader for Labour did not opposethe} submission^{made by the learnedcounselfor the petitioners'}

¶49

In view^{of the submissionsmadeby the learned counselfor} the respective^{parues,this court deemsit appropriate to dispose of} the writ^{petition by granting riberty to the petitionersto approach} the Labour^{Court for redressal of their grievance'in accordance with} law

¶50

Accordingly,^{the Writ Petition is disposedof' granting liberty} to the^{petitioners to approach the Labour Court'However, it is} from the^{date of} made^{clear that the period of consumptioni'e'} filing of^{the Writ Petition on 24' 10'2017 tillits disPosal i.e',}

I

I T I

4

09.09.2025 shall be excluded while computing the delay in

¶55

approaching the Labour Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this

¶57

Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶58

SD/- P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSSTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY/ I A

To,

SECT|ON OFFTCER

t"

¶63

' lffi^gl?;ltX ( : : B :i)i tsd,tfl """1^{J:l?:p"lffi: ulfffi y o,oy m e n t rrai ni ns}

¶64

' I+t?"flHTfiif:,.or1-abour'^{Governmentor retangana AnjaiahBhavan,}

¶65

The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Governr nent of relangana Anjaiah

¶66

enavan, Fircli iioiis nyoerruaa.

¶67

One CC to M/s. JUR|SL|T LAW LLp, Advocates tOpUCl

¶68

t Labour, Hish court ror the State or rerangana at

¶69

ly8"r:8io^tioSi "'

¶70

One CC to S|VT. MOGtLt ANAVEN|, Advocate tOpUCl

¶71

fwo CD Copies

MP

PVL W

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910912025

-' : j:':':-l:?:-T'r'-
, '..-':.'-'' , i:- S;;fi;:::,.-
-c r:-:l'.
".'-<..) '
'': ,<br>r._)
li :..:.i : z4sEPzffi :t,l
ji i/
-: : .1, .,. 'r
'... rl{ - ;. ..,
: :''
' -":t'i ..:ri.t..-i:]!t:-!.._r'.\cvr';'; ; 1 -lr.;

¶77

ORDER

¶78

WP.No.35426 ot 2017

¶79

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶80

WITHOUT COSTS

¶81

q
?^<br>

Gv Raghava Reddy, Hyderabad and 1 Other v. the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gv Raghava Reddy, Hyderabad and 1 Other v. the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shetty Bhupathi (E.C.No. 0003854) Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep. by its

M/S. Hawk Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Secbad Vs Joint Commissioner of Labour, Guntur and 2 Othrs

B.Srinivas Reddy, Medak District. Vs the Labout Court, Hyderabad and Another

M/S Ramky Engineers Pvt.Ltd Vs S.Lakshman, Hyderabad

P.Srinivas, Karimnagar Dist. Vs Chairman and M.D. Scc Ltd. Kothagudem and 3 Others

S. Narsi Reddy Vs the Depot Manager, Apsrtc., and 2 Others