Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist Erstwh ile Medak District v. ThiruPati Rao, S/o. V. Thavrthi Aged about

PVV Sathyanarayana, S/o, p. Subba Rao Aged about 39 years, Occ: private Service R,/o. H. No, 7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Vlllage, R.C. puram, Sangaredcy Disi., Erstr,vhile t'4edak District f'l Narasimha Rao, S/o. I!,1. Sriramulu Aged about 36 years, Occ: prjvate Service R//o. H.No.7 89, Neta.lj Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. puram, Sangaredcy Dis:., Erstwhile l'1eda k District S. Krishna Reddy, S/o. S. tyanipat Reddy Aged about 36 years, Occ: private Service R/0. H.No.7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. puram, Sangareddy Disi ., Erstr^rhile t\,1eda k District ''].V. Raja Rao. S/o. N. Shanker Rao Aaed about 38 years, Occ; privatc Service a./o. H.No.7-89, Netali Nagar, 3endlsgufls Village, R.C. puram, Sangareddy Dist.. =rstwhile Ch. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Bal Recldy .1.ed about 35 years, Occ: private Servtcc 11/0. H.No.7,89, Netaji Naga r, Bandiaguda Village, R.C. puram, Sangaredd/ Dist., :r;t!^Jhile t\4edak District l\. iiageswara Rao, S/o. Narasimha Rao ,\91ed about 41 years, Occ: private Servlce t1./o. H.No.7-89, Netaji Nagar, ilandlaguda Village, R,C. puram, Sanqaredd,/ Dist., t rstwhile f4edak District lvled a k Dlstrict SiCK Pillai, S/o. Subrahmanyam pi ai t\ged about 35 years, Occ: private Servrce R/o. H.No.7-89, Neta.ji Nagar, Uandlaguda Village, R,C. puram, Sangareddv Dist., Erst\,^/hile lvleda k District G. Krishna Reddy, S/o, Kondaiah Aged about 34 years, Occ: private Service R/o. H.No. 7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. puram, Sangareddy Dist, Erstwhile [4edak District T. Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o. T. pu a Reddy Aged about 37 years, Occ: private Service Fli o. H.No.7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. puram, Sangaredd;, Dist., E rst\n/hile l'ledak District 7

36. T.V. Subba Reddy, S/o. T Venkata Swamy Aged about 40 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No.7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Vlllage, R.C. Puram, Sanqareddy Dist Erstwhile Meda k D istrict '

37. S. Venkateswarlu, S/o. S Ramaiah Aged about 35 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No. 7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C, Puram, Sanqareddy Dist Erstwhile Medak District '

38. Smt. S. Muthyalamma, W/o Babau Rao Aged about 40 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No.7-89, Netaji N aga r, Bandlaquda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist E rs twhile l'ledak District 39. R. Mohan, S/o. R NaraYana ' Aqed about 43 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No.7-89, Netaji N aga r, Bandlaguda Villaqe, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist E rstwh ile Medak District '

40. l. Purushotham, S/o. l. Krishnaiah Aged about 38 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No. 7-89, Netaji Naqar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C Puram, Sangareddy Dist Erstwh ile lYedak District '

41. K Naga Raju, S/o, K. Subba Raidu Aged about 3B years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No. 7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist Erstwhile lvledak District '

42. Smt. M. Krishna Kumari, W/o t'4 Gurumurthy Aged about 40 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No. 7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist E rstwhile lvledak District '

43. D. Errappa Setty, S/o. D. Pentaiah Setly Aged about 45 Years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No. 7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaquda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist ' . - Erstwhile Medak District 44. K. Lokanatham, S/o. K. Govlndaiah Aged about 42 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No. 7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist Erst\rhile Medak District ' I 45 :16 l(, Jagadish, S/o. K. Maruthi Aged about 30 years, Occ: Private Service R/o, H.No. 7-89, Netaji Nagar, {landlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist Erstwhile l'ledak District l(.V. Chalarna Reddy, S/c. K.V. Subba Recjdv ,\ged atrout l4 years, Occ: Private Servrce l1/0. H.No.7 89, Netajl Nagar, llandlaguda Viilage, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist i:rstwhile t"ledak District 4l . l(. Kishta Reddy, S/o. K,K. Narayana Reddy A.ged about 36 years, Occ: Private Service F./o. H.No.7-89, Netaji Nagar, Eandlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangaredd) Dist., f r.'.v,rile tvleda k District ilD. Qutubuddin, S/a. y1d. Fakruddin ,Aced about 33 years, Occ: Private Service i1/o H.No. 7-89, Netaji Nagar, jlandlaguda Vi{{age, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dtst rsty/hile 14 cda k District 49 50 51

52. P. Krishna Iqurthy, S/o. P. Manikyam Aqed about 33 years, Occ: Private Service i1/0, ll.No.7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangaredd/ Dist !rstv,,hile 14 eda k District l(. Narasimhulu, S/o. K. Brahmaiah Aqed about 30 years, Occ: Private Service a./o H.No.7 89, Netali Nagar, 3andlaguda Village, R.C, Puram, Sangaredd/ Dist :rst\rhile [ledak D istrict (i. Chandrasekhar Rao, S/o. G. Subba Rao ,{Eed about 35 years, Occ: Private Service l./o. H.No. 7-89, Netaji Nagar, 3andlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist :rstwhile [4edak District /\. Sathyanarayana, S/o. A. Narasaiah Aged about 45 years, Occ: Private Service 1/o. H.No.7-89, Netaji Nagar, 3andlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist :rstwhile Medak District Smt. D. Padmavathi, W/o. D. Sambasiva Ral Aged about 40 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No. 7-89, Netaji Nagar, Eandlaguda Vlllage, R.C, puram, Sangaredd / Dist Erstwhile Medak District 1 54 D. Srinviasa Rao, S/o- D. Anjaiah Aged about 40 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H,No. 7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C, Puram, Sangareddy Dist., Erstwhile lt4edak District

55. Smt. B. Nagamma, Wo. B. Narasimhulu Aged about 28 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No.7-89, Netaji Naga r, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist Erstwhile f4 eda k District

56. Smt. G. Sudha, W/o. Late Hanumantha Rao Aged about 45 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No.7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist Erstwhile I'4edak District

57. A. Narasimha Reddy, S/o. A. Narayana Reddy Aged about 46 Yea-S, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No.7-89, Netaji Nagar, tsandlaguda Village, R.C, Puiam, Sang.reddy Disi., Erstwhile iuled a k District

58. Smt. tv1. Surya Kumari, W/o. M. Bhasker Reddy Aged about 39 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No,7-89, Netaji Naga r, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist., Erstwhile Medak District 59 K. Venkata Rao, S/o. Aqed about 42 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No.7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist., Erstwhile [4edak District

60. S. Bhasker Rao, S/o. S. Anjamma Aged about 42 yeas, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No.7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist., Erstwhile Medak District 61. S. Ravinder, S/o. Rajamallu Aged about 35 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No.7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist., -E rstwh ile Medak District

62. l'1.lanardhan Reddy, S/o. M. Nagi Reddy Aged about 42 years, Occ: Private Service R/o. H.No.7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. Puram, Sangareddy Dist., Erstwhile l"leda k District t0

63. D. Barbas Patya, S/o. Aged about 39 years, Occ: private Servrce R/o. H.No. 7-89. Netaji Na9ar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. puram, Sangareddy Dijt., Erstv;hile Medak District 64. G. Anand R.ao, S/o. G. Devaiah Aged about 52 years, Occ: private Service R/o. H.No. /-Bg. Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. puram, Sangareddy Diljt., Erstr,,;h ile lvleda k District

65. K. R.anga Su;amy, S/o. K. Rangaiah Aged about 36 years, Occ: prjvate Service R/o. tl.No. 7-89. Netaji Nagar, Bandlaguda Village, R.C. puram, Sangareddy Di:;t., Erstwhile Medak District 66. P. Pullaiah, S/o. p. Subanna Aged about 26 years, Occ: private Service R/o. lt.No. 7-89, Netaji Nagar, Bandiaguda Village, R.C. puram, Sangareddy Djst., Erstw hile l"1eda k District FiespondenLs Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia pra yrng thai in the circumstances state(j ln the aflidavit filed therewith, the High Cou.t may be pleased to issLre a Vy'rit Order or direction more particularly one ln thr: nature of Writ of Certiorari, callrng for the records order passed in M.P No.5 I oi 2004, dt.18-01-2019. on the file of the Respondent No. 2 and declare tre same as bad and quash the same. l.A.NO:1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances siated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be plear;ed to stay of all further proceeciings in pursuant to the Order passed in N/F, No.t;1 of 2OO4 dated 18.01.2019 on the file oF the respondent No2 pendinq dispcsal of the above writ petition l.A.NO:1 OF 2020 Befween: "" f . ' i'A":-"r. S/o S Santhaiah Ased 'lbout 39 ye ars occ Private ;;;'i;; R)o'tt No zeg Netaji fragar-Bar dlagud a v 1? c Puram Sangareddy Dist Erstwhiie Mcdak District 3 "

2. V S Brahmam S/o Narasimha Chary Aged ?bo'rj 47 yca;s Occ Private Service n7o U lfo 789 Net2ji Nagar,Bandl^aguda Village i C Pr.; Sa,rgareddy Dist Ersfivhile Medak Distnct -s7o f 3 Rama Rao Aged about 4o years Occ ii R sutu^ nao i,""*" s-c*lce R/o H No 789 Netaji Nagar Bardlaguda Village R C p.r.r- Sangaredd-v Dist Erstrvhile N4edak District 4. Smt S Chandrakala W/o Srinivasa Rao Aged about 40 years ' Ol. p.i""ie Service R/o I{ t'{o 789 Netaji Nagar Bardlaguda ;i;;;^R c il"r. sangareddy Dist trrstwhile Medak District

5. Smt Asmathunnisa W/o MD.Ibrahim Aged about 45 ycars " 5." prit"t Service R/o ll Nq789 Netaji Nagar Bandlaguda iii[s;-R-E Pn.,-, Sangareddy Dist trrstwhile Medak District

6. Smt A Sarala W/o Za}reeruddin Aged about 48 years Occ " ;;i;; ii 6 pr."- sangareddy Dist Erstwhile Medak DisricL ;*1." nlo H No 789 Netaji Nagar Baldlaguda \rillagc 7 8 9 10 K tulanalah S/o A Mallaialt Aged about 38 years Occ Private i.^i." nl" ft No ZgS Netaji Nagar BarLdlaguda Village R C Puram Sangarcddy Dist Erslwhile Medak District A Yariaiah S/o A Mallaiah Aged about 38 years Occ Private b"rr"" nl" if No ZSg Netaji Nagar Baidlaguda Village R (] Pu."m Srrgrr.ddy Dist Erstrvhile Medak Disrrict Smt K Susuna W/o K Thirupathaiah Aged about 44 years Occ pi""r"-s""*rt" Rf o H No 789 Netqii Nagar Bandtaguda Village R C P"."- Sangareddy Disl Erstwhile Medak Disr rict Smt P Viiava Rai W/o ..iohn,Cannedy Aged about 36 years O." pAr",! Sen'ice R/o fl No. 789 Netaji Nagal Elandlaguda VrU"g;R C Puram Saflgareddy Dist Erstwhile Medak District \ 2 I,! LiI r t Iq Iii ! i E I t I I I I i I I I i I I I I ,.1 )_.- 11 t2 13 l4 5 L6 I7 ]E 19 2A 21 22 23 r'ri !lakla Rcddy S/o i!,1 ivlaJIa Rcddy Aged about 47 r.ears lcc l' i' r:^ S(.r\rcc R/o H No 78! \etaji N;gar Bandla6rda Vi lag: il C Puriun S;mgaredd_v Dist Er.strvirile I,IeCat Dis;jcr S:r ' D L,rr'lra W/o Brkashapirhr Aged abour 39 y-, r., Oc. f . ila , 5"n1g. R/o H No 7Bo \ciaji Nag"r BandligrcJr \.illag- R C. Pur..r:i Sangareddl.Dist Drsnvhile N{cda_k DisG:t Iiurn G Chaya Devi D/o Agcd about 40 years Occ piivate S:r',,ic( ,R/ o H No 789 Nctaji Nagar Bardlaguda Villr gc R ( I\rr.un SJnBJreddS Dist Erstrvl:rle Medalr Dist rict K Bhasker S/o K Sangappa Aqed abor-rt 40 vcars Oc,: privatc S^r viic R/o H h*o 78o Netaji Ni:gar Birndlrqudlr VilL:ic R C I'rr.!n t-.lrtgaJedd\. Dist Erstr{.hil. Medali Disrrict S 'l'ulasidas S/o S Appala Srvamy Aged about 4O yeais Occ P|ir.are Se;r,ice R,/o H No 789 lictaji Nagar Barndtig"rla \rillage I? C P,-rlira Sar-rgar.edcll,Dist Ilrsnvhilc l,Icdak Disiirt S Anji iteddy S/o Ch Veeraiah Aged about.14 years Occ Pri-..rle S.::r1cc R/o H No 789 Nctaji Nagar Baldlagu,ia Villrge R C Puram Salgarcddy Disl Erstrvhite Medak Distict Ch Sude:shan S/o Ch Vceraiah Aged about 44 years Occ Privare Service R/o H No 789 |,Ietaji Nagar Bandlaguria Viilrgc R C l)urarn Samgareddy Disr Ersnvhile ivlecl;il< Distric,. t'i Lrarsi Reddy S/o l\{ Sathi ReCdy.{ged abour 39 l,.e..rs Occ Pi r', 1t. Seivlce R,/o 1l No 739 Ietaji Nagar 13andlagr|ia \riilrge R Cl Pllr-arrr Sangarecidy Dist !rst!,Jhi1e ivle.liJi Disl ci Ilaja Ra]rt S/o Sangaiah Agcd about 4.1 vceirs Occ p.ive.te Sr:r'vice il,/o H No 789 Netaji i\agar Baldiaguda Villalle R C Pu r:rn Sangareddy Dist Erstrhile Medak Disrrict MD ,thaja S/o MD Ismait Aged about 45 years Occ p-il,ate Seivicc Il/o H No 789 Netaji Nagar Bandlagrrda VillalSe R C Puram Sangareddy Dist Erslwhile fuIedak District T Ramuiu S/o T Pentaiah Aged about 40 years Occ Frivate Serwlce R,/o H No 7E9 Netaji Nagar- Bardlagucla Villal1e R C Pulam Sa.ngareddy Dist Ershvhile Medak District V Th ntpa,i Rao S/o V Thavithi Aged abour 43 vears Occ Private Scrrice R/o H No 789 Netaji Nagar Banilagurla Vitl,rgc R C Pura,rr Salgareddy Dist Erstwhile Medak Disl ric . S Chr.ndrJrasa Rcddl'S/o BaJa Ranga Reddv Aeed -bout 35 - - years O...Private Service R/o H No ZSS Xetcii N;: 'Bairrl.a-1rcia Vi)lagn R C Pu ram Sangaredrlv oist frsL.rtrile I I g t I I 'l ) ii: lil:i t' I t; i; i-t r* ,1 B-,1 t) Ir ''YY I I I i I I 1 1 I : I : t : ! j i I l : I l I I I I I j ( i I ! I I i. I , r \ qI i Medak District 2 24 25 26 *^?n^":k: Reddy S/o A yadav.,, Reddy ABed abour 33 vp ,.. l_rcc prrrale servicc R/o H ivo 789 N._irt"irl;;;;:i"r;ff vl'age R c puram sangaJeddy ursL rrrsruhrre Mcda_k Districr 5[":?,ti"tL?.T;;,;",^.;lBl:ii,,^,$::-ibi:r3eyears vi I I a se R c e"."^ s.i, g", j;; ;1"'J ;': ;l,if l;""ffi ;::,T., $J*:#i{xr#ijlT#lirfl?.i{1i1fr;,nr

27. S r(rishna O.rOu =rj:. y11ipj.l. r{:gdy nged drrour 3u}.edrs yj ; ;:' r I i,"x': 1H 3"H:irJ) ; : ;, I;,1,i,:il l, x, 1,, )lU Raja R.ro S/o N St,.,rrker Rro Aqc<1 abcur tR ,.^ r varp s-ni^e nz. ;i ^- ir. '^' o - ,,.,," a._ij,'." , : 11r_n, r.,ii Nacrr n,,,or.e, lr Dist Ersrwhrre ' -o- -'a'ud" l'rlla*e ir octr. Jq ]-.u.. oc. ^:-i.*."," ,U

29. r' Sr.inrv.rs R.ridv s ;t{r.#;:*''/i:i'8"'$#"f **"":'.",r';ffi ?;t*.

30. A Nageswara Rao S/.

33. SCt( piltai S/n s,,A_^r_ ;#;;F ;:,x "Jy*j#lil ;xTi,_, n :#,tr., ;?tr.H*xj.:x:f;ir,t".:jii,$Httrt,,j*i:Trs;: 3 t. G JGishna Reaav SZo I [?tr.yi:".#,;lii::"T;,,fitie#*ffi :h,"-"

32. TRa.lasel<har Reddy S/o f puita p-,.r,.- . .Jcc Private seruice-R/o g ,v" )i,j'l,iil,o$ed abour 37 ycars vrllage R c Puram s"ic*Jd" "";"1'etaJi Nagar Bandlaguda -' "'-'ot"hvhile Medak rjistrict r;,"d#r.f,#i*#Jilr:rr:,#i'"":*{t*r J3. T V Subba Redcry s/o ,

34. S Venkateswarlu S/o s Ram-i-r. ^ Privarc Scr-vice R/o H No zso;l-1911 abour 3s years occ R C Prrram Sa-ngareddv rtr e ]."niii'llflXas.natrs1,a. vittrs.

35. Smt S Muthya1anrma W/o aalJ.,,, D- .occ Priv3re service R/o ll Nc zsi l)il ie:a abour 40 years Virrage R C puram Sa,,gareddl:;i"i;llf ,il:f&:ilr11tii, _--l \ F -.-'iija,1i' . ':l'.i. ry.,.;i._!rr:..2 *+ i' { t r:r,y k 36 37 38 39 R \{ohar.L S/ o R Narayana Agcd about 43 years Occ Privzrte Sr:r-vice R,/o H No 789 Netaji Nagar Bandlaguda Vi.lage R C PuraJn Sangareddy Dist Erstwhile Medak District Purtrslrotlranr S/o J lrrishnaiJ]-] Aged about 3B ) rars Occ I'r ivate Scn.icc It/o i1 No 789 Neraji Nagar BaldliruCa \rillase R ( Pur.,rn Sdngar-,ldy Disr Ersiuhile Medal< Distr:cl I( Naga Rajr-r S/o Ii Subba Raidu Aged about 38 verus Oc: Prilatc Sen'ice R/o H No 789 Netaji Nagar Baldiaguda Vrllage R C Purarn Sangareddv Dist Drstwhile lvledat Distict Sn: l"l Iilishna I(u$ari W/o l,l Curumurthy Aged . bcur .iO rre.,.fs O.. I,rivate Scnice R/c ll No 7g9 iietaji liaizr Farrdlaguda Villagc Ii C p,-riam Sangarecldv Disf si;r,r,hilt: l\.1e rlal< D is i cict 40 D l-rrar)i)., :lct:1.S,1. D Pcntajah Setq,Age.l about j5 ycars ()C. Prir'1r. Sen,ice Rlcr H No 789 Nctaji \agar Ban.]laguca \.Lllrrge R fl Puram Sangarerldl.Dist Erstl(hilc \{c.lat. I)isL-ict 1). I( I-okanatharn S/o I( Gor,inda.ieh Aged about 42 ycir.-s Ocl . Private Ser-vice R/o H No 789 Netaji Nagar Bandlaguda Village R C Puram Sangarcddy Dist Erstwhile Medak District

42. K JrLgadish S/o I( \larrrthi Aged about 30 years Occ privale Senice R/o I{ No 789 Netaji Nagar Bandlaguda VilliLge R o PLrrirm Sangaredd,!' DisL Erstl(hile I\{edal< District 43 Ii V Chalama ltecidl; S/o l( \, Subba Reddy Age.i abr.Li 3.i _vear s Occ Private Sci vice R/o H No 789 Nctaji Naga - Bandlril:r1a \rillage R C Puran Sangaredd5, Dist Er:nvhile M.d,r k Dis Lrict

44. I( f{r;hta }ieddy S/o I( K 1'*ara}'ana Reddy Aged aboui 36 ycarrs Occ Jnvate Serwice Il/o H No 789 Netaji Nagar Bancilagr,rda \ri1la;1e R C Puram Sangaredd,v Dist Erstu,hile Mcdali ifistuicr 45 MI) Qutut)uddin S/o i\'Id Falimddin Aged about 33.,ears ()cc Private Se.vice R/o H No 789 Netaji Nagar Bandlaguda Villagc R C f\rarn Sangareddy Dist Ershlhile i\'lcdak Distri,:'L

46. Ir Krishna Nlurtiry S/o P Manr\'am Aged about 33 ycars Ctcc Privare Serrice R/o t{ No 789 Nctaji Nagar Bardlaguda Viilagc R C l-I:;rm Sargare dd-v DisL Er-stwhile Medak Dist|ir:t 47. K Narasimhulu S/o K Bral-rmaiah Aged about 3O ye;rs Oc,: Privar e Service Rio H No 789 Netaji Nagar Llandlagurla Villrge R C Pura-'n Salga:-eddy Dist Erstwhile Nledai< D.istri<:t

48. G Chandrasekhar Rao S/o G Subba Rao Aged abouL 35 years occ Private Service R/o H No 789 Netaji Nagar Bandlagud;r \riliage R C Puram Sangareddy Dist Erstwhile Meda-I, District .t I l1 J i{ .l I iJ :, ;lI .( T :L- I ! I I I I 6 L E , ' . :.r!] t: -{-- $. 49 50 51 52 Il:llr:"*.ra,ra S/o A Na r:ffi .m:iit"jr.lii:ffi""#T,trF,il#ldii"Tff; Smt D Padmavathi w/^ n o^ Smt B Naganma W,,^ p r.r_. HH*,+,"sdJ,,1, # "#'ft # Ir Ir. ffi{ J,"# .-;: f *:*Hldhli?tiiTfr ;ru: ;':" i* :*,.-l*,m ;,: t ,l#f"?:'J:l :y/ ;"ffi ,?.'"T,i,,j.: I $ S/#JH J:: it,h, j; i;}x.d.: ;" '-ffi";#;[:_y"###J$JF*hi"T1+H: jiifi{il1l o LrLe HanrL.n :rxr,r#i"T.i.?'i,,"*. 53

55. Smt M Surya Kumar-i w,, i:::fl"?:*,it:?IilH{* j:,. jr+it;-.+il::"

56. K Vcnkata Rao S /^ a -^,.r . oz" ti'i.i,?i6 xiij,,",$13:t::: 4,2 )'ears o.c privare sF,- s an g are d dy-o i s r" ;?ili:il #:J##ff JJ,,,." * ; ;: ;;..

57. S Bhasker Rao S/o S Ariam 58 59 60 Pnvare service Ri"" ; frJ7;J,i"i-*:o,,"bor, r: !ears occ K c Purarn Sa,rs.'eddy o,", ul.iijl,il1flToh,"*o" u,,,u.. S Rar.inder S/o Rqjamallu Ar m*:l*:il'*#",*,.'r,'"u.'J,T,;;rur;f. M Janardhan Reddv S/o l\{ N ffi T:x*;il;iy:JrilTirli#T,-,n{*1r{h .Barbas Patya S/ o Aged abor D r</o H No 789 Neraji *ra- u"i,toi"n l:Is,occ Pnv.rLe sena.e rargareddy Dist Ersrwhile ,.0* Bi"*J,',,"9c R C Puran € p ffi*ffifryrEa .l ..-6 61 62 53 {l AnarLd Rao S/o G Devaiah Aged about 52 5.ears ()cc private lierwice R/o H No 789 Neraji Nagar Bandlagurta Village R C Pr,rran Sangareddy Dist Erstrvhile Medak District l( Ranga Swarny S/o K Ralsaiah Aged about 36 veius Occ Private Service R/o H No 789 Neraji Nagar Bandtagrda Village Ii C Puram Sangaredcly Dist Erstrvhile Medak Dist?.ct I) hrllarrh S/o P Subalrr:e Aged abour 26 yet.s Occ prir.;ie Sen ice R/o H No 789 Ner:jr Nagar B.urdlaguca \.ilLrec R C Iturarn Sanga_rcddr Disr Ers.r,hile i\lcdal< districr PetiLioenrij/ Resl)on.ien ts ,ri N t) -\'17 s Hl,clerabad Connectronics Limited :.^191ff " ar 27I 3RT Sai rjc,.ra,reddi. Nagar Rcp by its i\lanagrng Director p Ran.r'<rishua Reddt S/o p V Nrrrasinlta Redd]. aged about 60 years Occ Busines! pato."t .., frl"aar. D is trict ...Respor.dent/ petiLioner Thc Srate.of Tclalgala Rep b1, rrs Irrincipal Secr-etar,\, Depa_rtrnent of Ltbour Secre tar- jat Building Sailabai Hyderabaci Tlte Labour Courr tI, Rcp b'.' its P O Hyderabaci I l I 1 I i i I ! I i I I I i I I Petit;on Undei Sect ION 15-1 CPC the affidavit filed in support of the pe vacate the order dated 26lO4tZO1g pas 2019 in the interest of .,ustice . .. Rer ipolrder-lLs prayrng that i n the , llrcun 1s ta nces stated in tition, the High Corrt m ay be pteased to sed in lA No 1 of 20i g in W.p No 9066 ol, : DR I.SUJATHA Counsel for the petitioners Counset for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR SERVICES ff X?:",,'il T,: ff T,:?XT ;[:?i,,i, J; l,;,] i, :,::l-i,,ffi.lff Hi?lf ; i : !;, i; : {;;..; :,#i it ; Counsel for the Respondent No.43 : SRI K.V.RAMANA The Court made the following.ORDER 1 6, 22, 23,2 5, 3,); 3 5 to 2e, 42 to 1 2 + 26, 2,, 28, (( L HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITIONNo.9 066 oF 2019 o RDER: Questioning the Order passed by Respondent No 2 Labour Court-lt in M P' No 51 of '2OO4 ' dated 18 O1-2Oi9' whercby Petitioner Company - M/s Flydcrabad Connectronics Limited was directed to pay RS. |,58,12,3191 to Respondents No. 3 to 66, without granting an opportunity oi being heard Lo Petitioner aftcr reopening the casc sl't'o ntoh; and u'ithout consiclering lhc facr that furtl and fin:rl settlcnlel-Il had already beenmader,l,ithsomeoftheRcspondentsandrr,iLhoutcnsuring proper sewice of noLice to Petitioner' this Writ Petition is instituted- Tl-re gncvance ol petitioner is that impugucd ordcr 2. violates the principlcs of natural justicc- Thc I'abour Court reopened M-P and proceeded to pass orders without aflording them an opportunity to conlcst' It is stated' though PeLitioner had made lult and hnal settlement rvith 32 employecs after they resigned from service, the same was not brought to the notice of the Labour Court, as the unofficial respondcnts suppressed thesema|erialfacts'WithoutcleductingLheamountsalrcady paid undcr full and hnal settlement' the Labour Court granted theentireclaimamounLtotheunofficialrespondents'including I { t t t I I 2 Lhose ,,r.hose claims wcre already settled, which canrot bc held as matn Iainable

2.t According to petitioner Comprany, t,y res;olution of rts Bo:rrcl ol'Dircctors ctated 2I L2_1\)gg, thcy dt.cider_[ to lay olf employecs from 26-12_199g due to nor-r-avai, ability ol rart material, Izrck of sufficient orders and paut:it_v :lf funcis. Compr:nsation :rs provided undcr Section 2S-C,tt tht: Ar:t u,.as assured t o flte workmen. 'lhis tact rt,as in[,rrmerl to tl-re I-abour, A.p., I{ydcrabad, i;1. Ietter datr:d Comrnissiorrcr of '26 12-19e8 5l ol 20O.1 IL is Iurthcr staLcci, thc workmcn r.:risccl M.p claiming lay-off compensation No and other sen,icc benefiIs to the tune of Rs. 1,58, 12,319/. Peti[ oner filcd its countcr- rletrl.ine the claims and contending that [he t:ase was I'tot maintainnblc since thc Company harJ been ref:lrred to BIF_R :rncl uncle r Scclion 22 ctf tne Sick Industries arrrl f 6mpsn lcc (Spccial Prc.visions) Act, procecdings could not be co.rtrnucd. Pe titioner filed Writ pe tition No. l gog of 2OO8 ivher:in this Court grantcd stay of further proccedings O1_O2_2{log. During the subsistcnce of stay order, several respondenl wrtrkmen, owing to r hcir personal needs, approachecl the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Sangareddy and re ques led for settlement, s,hich was arrived at in two phases. On 3O-O5_2O 1O, L9 rvorkmcn rvere paid their legal clues and on 27-O.1_201g, ) another 13 workmen wcre paid their legal dues' in both instances under Memoranda of Se ttlement undcr Section 12(3) o[ the Act after they tendered resignalions ]'hus' 32 out o[ 64 respondent workmen reccived futl and hnal settlerncnt of dues before thc DCL, Sangarcdcll ' It is the furthcr case o[ petitioner thal the Labour 2.2. Court purportedly reopened the malter in vierv of the judgment of t['re I{on'ble Supreme Court holding that interim stay orclers g,ould lapse after six months Accordingly' noLices u'erc issued on 30-O8 2018 to both thc parties The notice sent lo Petitioner was returned with postal endorsement "fractory closed Return to Sender" on O1-09-2018- The Counsel for Pctitioner' unable to contact thcm, hled memo date d O 1- I I -2O 18 be fore the L:rbour Court reporting no instructions' which \ ras acceptecl' Thereafter,Pctitionercametoknowoftlreimpugnedorderonly through one of their acquaintances' On 2l l2-2O18, unoflicial Respondents filed I A' 2.3. No. 66 of 2018 under Section 11(1) of the Act reacl with Sectiort 151 CPC. to reopen M'P, however' no notice was issued or se rwed on Petitioner nor rvas substitute service altempted Despite this, the Labour CourL proceeded to allow Lhe petition ol thc respondent workmen' ln the docket' it was recorded that counsel for Petitioner reported no instructions' but the final ,{ I { t. 4 order d.itecl 18-01-2o19 falsery statcs that counsel ro. petitioner vr.as hear:1. This cstablishes serious proccdural irrcgr,rlarity and clenierl o1'opportunily. IL is lurther statecl, nei her.responclent q,orl<mt n nor thcir Counsel disclosed to [_abour (]ourl about the settlements alrcady made with 32 workmen. 1.s a result. the Labour Court, u.ithout dcducting the amount alr,::rd\. laid to the tl.tne of Rs.43,33,5SO/ , dirccted petitioner to pa-v full claim amoLrnI ril Rs_ 1,58, ).2,319/ as prayed in M.p., The claim arnount \'.'as ltot bar:ked by proper calculaltion ,rr :;upporr-illg documetrls, u,hiclr amou ls to snppressior.r of rneiLcrra l-act-s and misleadinl3 thc Court.

3. This Court by order dated 26.04 .2O I 9 rvh ile issuing noticc, sritnted stay ol lurthcr proceedings in \4.p. No. .51 of 2OO.1 sutt-jer:t to petitiollcr clepositing 5O% ol thc au.zrrcl amoLlt.rt as clircct.erl b,r: the l,abour Court within eighl r,.,ccks from the date of rec:eipt of a copy of the said order_ In compliance rvith the said order, petitioner deposited Rs.79,06,519 / reF)resenrrng 5O7o ol ihe amount. Learned counsel for petilioner on 25.O1.2O2i] submitted rhat this Court dirccted rrnly 1o deposit but no permission was accorded to respondents t(t $,ithdra$. the amount. in spite of that 22 out of 64 respondcuts withdreu. Rs.27,89.2O5/- and without there being any order, th.e Labour Court allowed 28 Intcrlocutory Applications hled Ly respondents I. -i 5 which is highty objectronable ' On the ottrer hand' Mr' VenkaLa Ramana who represented the unofficial respondents submitted that upon scrvlng a copy and with thcir conscnL' I he l'As' wcrc allowed by the Labour Court' therefore' [he unofficial responden[s withdrew Rs 27'89'205/- and rest six I As' were pending before the I-abour Court lo rvithdrau' t-heir claim o[ amount from deposited amount of Rs 79'06 159/ Learned Assistant Government. Pleader lor l-abour sought timc to get instructions as to whether the action taken by lhe l'abour Court tn that vicrt' of the maltcr' is in accordance with law or lrot status quo lr'as directed to be maintaincd' Meanwhile' seeking vacation o[ Lhc order dated 4. 26.04.2llg and to permit Respondents 3 to 66 to withdra\'v 50% oItheamout]|,theylrledvacaLeStayApplicatior-r-Alongwithit, cou nter-afhdavit was liled stating that thcy had bcen continuous$ working in Pelitioner Company in differcnl categories of posts tor more L,rrar 27 ycars' While so' Petitioner managemenf declared tay-off through notice d'ated 26-12-1998' but failed to pay compensation as mandated under the provisions of the Act Petitioner' after cxpiry ol initial 45 days of lay-olf, neither extended the lay-off as per law nor procceded to take steps for retrenchment or reinstatement' and thus' as per law, Respondents 3 to 66 became enlitled to full wages after the 'a '\ t I { t. I 6 cxpirlr of tlre rrrst 4s days i-e., rvith effect from r)9 02 1999 anrl cont.inuir.rs till date. It is contended that under tlte 19.17 Act:rnd also thc P:rymcn t clf Wages AcL, thesc amoultt,s are legall-1,- p:rya [rL--. :ts petrtioncr had not settled thc acr:ounts ot rcspondcrts by paying the legal dues suclt as gr:rruity, rctrenchlnent compensation, leave encashmcnt, sala ry arrears lor 15 dar s in November l99g and 25 days in Deccnrber l9!lg, statlrton Lronus, l:r.y_off compe nsation for tl.re period 2tt 12 l99g to 08 02 19]99, ar.r<1 thercafter, f ull wages frorn 09r-O2 1999 orturi.]rds Srtveral rcquests nere nracle to pctitioltet, to rr:le:tsc tlre abovc duls, but the latter avordcd settlerlcnt ot) o[c l)rctc_\t or the dthcr, leavrng unofficial respondents with no opti()n bllt to 33-C(5) of tlre Act for a 1,58,12,319 t al,rng .,,.1rn lhe r;etition under Section clircr:tiorr to pa\- :1n amorllt of.Rs rn tere s I

4.1. lt is further stated, the Board for Industrial :rnd I?inant:ial R(lconstruction (BIFR) in Case No.75 of l99f: fiiecl by Petitioner under Section 5(t) of the Sick Industrizrl Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1gg5, cleclared petitionr:r as a sick industrial company on 0g-o1- 1997. Despite, peLitroner cricl ,ot compl], u,ith its statutory obligations to pay legat duc s to its employecs. [n vierv of the judgment of the Hon1tle Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Roacl Agencg put. Ltct.. us. Central ( ',*l 1 Bureau of lnuestigation' dated 28-03-2018' lau' has been clearly laid down lhat intcnm stay orders will operate only for six mon|hsunlessextendedbyaspcakingorder.lrtviewolthcsaid law and the circular instructions of this Court' thc matter before theLabourCotrrtwasproceededfurther,thus,therewasno illegality in reopening M P No' 5l of 2004 and continr-iing pr{,cecdings against Pct itioncr' tt is stated that unofhcial respondtlnts carne [o 4.2. knorv zrbout the alleged full and final scLtlemcLrts said lo have been made rvith 32 employees only after liting of the present Writ Petition- No rccords whatsoever \1rs1g liled bc[orc the Labour Court in M'P' No' 51 of 2OO4 to show that such seltlements had been cffected outside the Court ln the absence o[ such record, therc was no occasion for thc ['al.lour Court Lo consider thc same Pelilioncr itsctf in its noticc dated 26-12-1998 to the Commissioner of Labour' had declared lay otf, citing that orders for hnished products rvere practically nil and that there was no utitity in producing goods rvithout demand, coupled with paucity of funds ald shortage of raw malcrial. Petitioner's own notice records that the Board of Directorsintheirmeetingheldon2l12lggsrcsolvedtolay-off a1l workmen and staff with effect from Lhc evening of 1 'lt ,i -, t. t. 8 26-L2 1998 and Lhat such workmen would be c:ntitlcd to comllensatior] unrler Section 25 C of the Act. 4.3. Unclcr.section 25 C, sygry u,orkman (otiter than 21 badli ivorkrnan or casual r,r,orkman) r,vhose name is bor-ne on Lhe mustcr rr_rlls ol the industrial establishmcnt and rvho has complcturl not lcss than one ycar o[ continuous servir:e, if lairi- r;fl', is ertrit lc.c1 [o compensetion equal to 50o/o o[ tJ-rc basic wagcs and dc:rrncss :riloq,ancc lor all days of. lay o lf, cxcel)t \\,eckl-\,- holrd:i.''s. rl is sLaLecr that proviso r trereLo :,r[ou,s an r:rnpkr_vcr_, aftt:r uxpll i Ol' tli days ol l.r1, olf iri any Lu,clve tnonlh 1ter.iod. tcr citlter r:orrlutr.tr: Itt.y off onlv u,ith :rgrecmctrt of u.orkmcn or under Section 25_F-, with retrenchmcnL compCnsatiotr. Iit the present case, petitioner did nc,t obtain :lqreenc.t ,f rc.sJr,^dents lor [a1,off beyonrl 45 d t_r,s nor rlici it I)rocced 1.1 rctrench them b1' paying retrertchmcltt compensation. Consequentl_v, respondents bccare entitled to lull u,ages aftcr expiry ol 45 days, i. addition to .omp.nsatron lor the inirial 45 days_ retrcnch t.hr:nt

4.4. tt is further stated, petitioner had rLot trled a r-ry agrcemcnl belore the Labour Court showing conrsent of rcsponden{s for- continuing lay_off beyond 45 day:;, nor had it proved pal rtrcnl of retrcnchment cornpensation under Section 25 F. Petitton.:r never disputecl the calculations slrbmittcd by I 1 d 9 them along with their petition in M'P' No' 51 of 20O4 Since the claim of respondents was supported by records and undisputed by PeLi[ioner, lhe Labour Court was justified in allou'ing the claim petitron. Heard Smt' L Sujatha, iearned counsel for 5. pclitioner as well as lcarned Governmcnt Pleadcr for Scrvices-l on bchalf of thc 1st respondent and Sri Alwaikar C- Balakrishna' Iearncd counsel lor the unofficiarl respondents- Upon consideration of lhe pleadings and material' 6. this Courl is ol thc view rhrtl lhc contenliun ()[ P'lilioncr regarding violation ol natural justice cannot be sustaincd' In this rcgard, the case of petitioner is that on 21 12 2Ol8' unoflicial Respondents hled I A No 66 of 2018 under Section 11(1) oi thc Act read wilh Seclion 151 CPC Lo reopcn M-P'' ho$,cvcr, no notice lvas issued or served on them nor was sr-rbstitute service attempted Despitc this' the Labour Court proceeded to allow the petition of the respondent workmcn' [n the docket, it lvas recorded that counsel for Petitioner reported no instructions, but [he final order dated 18-01-2O19 falseiy states that Counsel for Petitioner was heard This eslablishes serious procedural irreguiariry and denial of opporlunity' As is evidcnt from their own affidavit filed in 7 . support of this Appiication, pelitioner stated' "lhe La bour Court i I I t, 10 .} said to have issued notice Lo petitioner and respondcnts, through :egistercd post datcd 30.08.201g. Tht: not;ce sent to pr:tilionur .,r,as c:ausr_-cl ro rcLurlt back on Ol_09.20 1g u,itlr a postzrl r nclorscmr:lt [ 'l:ictory closed reLurrl lc sencler,. Subseqr,ttn(ly, thc cot-ir-rscl for petitioner came to krow about rcopcnin;; o[ M.P.No. 51 of 2OO4 ancl tried to conLa(]r Lhcm, but coukl nor. Hencr--, the cour]scl hlcd memo datecl [, L. 1 1.20 ] g lrelorc tirt [,abour Court.ll informing the sarne erncl rr:portecl ncr instrttcLior-rs. 'l'he sa mt_- r.r,as acceptcd by llrc I_altr,ur Court. lVlren llrr c:ounscl l-rimsclI lilecl a nlenro rcp,)rliltg no insLrur:lioLrs, thc qucstiolt ol ser-rcling any notice nor taking steps to makc substituted service to inform petitioner erbout reopening of casc docs not arise. In priganka Kumqri u. So,hilendra Kuntarl, ihc IJon'blc Supreme Conrt clearlv ottservcrl that the ivord 'rcfrisal' c.llt bc intcrpreted in synon-ymorrs to the u,ord 'uncl:rrmecl'. Wheit a notice is served to thc proper iLddrcss ol the aclclrcsscc, it shalt be dcemecl to be serued unless contrary is provccl. 'lhus, u,hcn tlte notice is returned as, unclaimed, il shali be dee med to be served and it is proper servicc. ,lherefore, service ol toticc u.hich has returned as unclaimeC is considered as d€remc. to be sen ed. In view o[ lhe same, it cannr>t be said that therc is violation of principles of natural j usticr: and the r 'franstir Pctirron (Civit) No. 2).nl\)19 'j? l1 I order was passed wilhout giving petitioner opportunity of being heard. l'-urther, it is to be seen petitioner ilself in noticc

8. dated 26 12 1998 to the Commissioner o[ Labour' had declared lay otl, citing that orders for finished products n'ere practically nilandthattherewasnoutitir5r-inproducinggoodswithout dem.urd, coupled u'ith paucity of funds and shortage ol ra$' matcria[. Pclilioner's ou'n notice recorcls that the Board of Directors in thcir meeting hcld on 2l 12 lgga re solved to lay-oli all norkmeu :'Lnd stafl with eltbct frorn thc evening of 26-12 lqgg and Lhat such workmen \r'ould bc enti[led [o compcnsation under Section 25-C of the Act' Under Section 25- C, every r'r'orkman (other than a badli workman or casual r,r,,orkllr:rn) ['hosc t-rame is bortre on thc rnuster rolls of the inclustrial est:rblishmenL and tt,ho has completcd not less than onc year of continuous service' if laid-ofl' is entitled lo compcnsation cqual lo 5oolo o[ the basic wages and dearness allorvance lor all days of lay off, except we ekly holidays Proviso there|oallowsanemployer,afterexpiryof45daysoflay.offin any twelve month period, to either continue lay off only with agrecment of workmen or retrcnch them under Section 25-F' with retrenchment compensation ln the presenl case' Petitioner did not obLain agreement of respondents for tay-off beyond 45 \ t 1 l2 t. days n.)r' dict rt proceed to retrench thcm b1, paying retrcncitrrrtnt compens:rtiot-l. COnsequenlly, r:spondents bcciln'*: , rrtitlecl ro lull u,,gcs aftcr cxpiry o1 45 <lays, i. additio, to compr rrs:rtion lor ttrc rnitial 4S da.\.s. 11",,,,," thev ir-rstituted N{.['.No. 5l of 2004 belorc the Larbour Cour wh ch passcrl or<lers in lrvour of the unofficial responc]cnts t(r the eflect that petirir;r'rcr slrolrld pav Rs. 1,58,12,:1191-. In rhc counLer f-rled ]t-v the petJtl')r1cr conlpany belore the [,abour Court, ir u,as srirtc(l that tl).' h:rd noL cleniccl about entitlenrcl rt oI urroll.ic:iarl rcsponrlcnts. ln ttre l:rv ofT noricc markccl :rs Ex. F, 1 also, petitioncr' c()lnparr,\. arlmitted th:rl r-rnofficial rc:,;ponrli:nts t,cre entitlcd t() cornpensation unclcr Scction 25(c). Before l.he Labour Courl , unolliciaL l-espondeLtts contended that the v \\rct.e not parcl La1. .ff - ,, , P.. silt ion :rs 1;r:r thc oror.isio.rs of Lhc Aot ..rl thr: managcnl.lt I af tcr cxltir r o[ firsL 45 rlays c]id not settle Lhr:ir accounts b,v paving thc lcgal clues such as; gratuity and reLrencht'elrl, compensal,ion ancl cnclosed a stal.ement with ttre amounts r:ntitled bv them including the wages for a pt:riod of l5 dzrys in Novcmber 1998 and 26 clays in Decemb,rr 19,1g, bonus for 7997 !r8 ar-rd 1998 99 at 8.33% p.a. , lcave <:ncashrnent for 30 days, la1. of compensa[ion frorn 26. 12.i 9ga to 013.O2.199q and w:r !l. s fion'r 09.02.1999 to March, 2OOq. As the managenlc nt dicl not disl.rute the calculation made bv the {,s employces and failed to f-rle any agreement entered by thern with petitioners after expiry of firsl 45 days of the lay off or that he had r,'t rencherl I he rmploydcs by paying an] cumpensstion' the Labour Courl considercd it. hl to allow thc Petilion as claimed by the emptoyecs The said hnding of the l'abour Court cannot be said to be itlcgat, in thc opinion of this Court' With regarcl to the contention that respondents- 9. employ'ecs havc rT'ithdrnu'n t-he rlcposiicd amoul'rt u'ithoul therc bcing an explicit ordcr lrom this Court pcrmitting thcm to u,ithdrau', it is to be nol-ed thtrt emplol'ees lilcd Applications sceking witl'rclrawal o[ the deposiled amount and the Labour Supremc Court Courtafterissuingnoticetopetitionerandhearingarguments permitti:d employees to rvithdrau' Petitioner' except contending lhat thcre is no ordcr as such has no[ placcd any law or a bincling prcccclcnt as pcr thc larn' laid down by the Hon'ble ['Iou,evcr, the law is clear as Lo withdrawal by the judgment debtor like the case), and in case the dePositor petitioner/emPloS'sl- itl himsetf seeks withdrawal of the amounL after obtaining stay by depositing thc amount, the depositor has to lurnish an equivalen[ guarantec / security to protect thc interest of the the dePositor himsell (i.e., t his o tl-rer side I Ir 't t l4

10. However, whe n it comcs to u,ithdrar.ral b.r the decree holdcrs {crnplol,ees hcrein), it is to be noted, tht:rc is no bindrng prer-:etler- l s.lrcn thcre is r:ondition:ri ordcr oI sLar', rzlbeif no pcrrnissi,rrr to rr ilhdrau,. llou.ever, it Itas bccrL Lhe lzlr,, cuslonl.lry and iong-st:rnding as ii has been, []ore so in cascs likc motor accidcnts, or rnoney suits, not tu rcstrict the dccree I'roldcr ft-orn enjoving the frrrits ol rhe decree, tLLat tco rvhen thc higher Corrrt has st:r.\,ccl thc dccrcc spccifical]v :rn t1'c condition ol cie posit; and tltc partics (decrce Ltoklcr s), : r e usualll.' pcrrnitLer.l Lo u,iLlrrlrar.l thc ck:Jrositcd a trroLrrrl.

11. [n lhc instanL case, the <Llr:kcl prrceedings of the Lal.;our ( lourt, in respect of the applicaLion fc,r wi,,hdrawal of deposited aurounL, shows that petitioner rccciycd noticcs and sought 1nre to lllc countcr, horvever, c()Lllltcr .rppeilrs to hi.r-r,e not l)ecl I filcd. Thc Laborir CourL, ltavins hc ,Lrcl lhr: parties, perrlittcd withdrarvaL o[ tl're dcpositc{l amo Jnt, apparcntly considcring the facl that \\()rkmen/ emplovees have been laid off, rvithr,ut emplovment, and ihere is an Au.lrcl in th:ir favour. Further, in Asian Resurfacing o.f Roa;d Agencg Put. Ltd. us. Central Bureau of Inuestigation, datcd 28-03-2018, lau, has been cle:Lrly laid clou,n that Lnterim stay orders ,vill operate only lor slr rnonths unless extcnded b5, a speaking o: der. Since stay ordor rr.as not sought to bc extcnded, 22 out of 6.1 unofficial t. I. n r i t I ! : i ) respondents withdrew the amounts to a tune of Rs 27,89,205/- by tiiing Interkrcutory Applications in the Labour Court For the forcgoing rcasons and under thc circumstances, this Court does not sce any impropriely in thc Labour Court, in the facts of thc pfe scnt case, it'r permitting Lhc wiLhdrawal of deposited amor-lnt' It is the furLher case of petitioner [hat neither 12. rcsponclcnt r'"'orkmen nor their Counscl disclosccl to Labour Courl:tt]oul thc sett-lemctrts :rlrcacly made u'ith rcspect to 32 rtorknrr:n- As a result, Lhe l-abour Court, r'r'ithout dcducting the amounl zrlrcadv paid to the ttrne oI Rs 43,33,550/-, dirccted Petitioncr to pay fult claim atlount of Rs' 1 ,58,12,31'9 I as The claim amount was not backcd by proper supportillg documents, rvhich amount s to prayed in M.[' calculurlion or suppression ol material lircts antl misleacling thc Cor-rrt On Lhe other hancl, unofficial respondctlLs contend that they came to knou'about lhc zrlleged full and final settlernents said to havc been rnacle u'ith 32 cmployecs only afler liling of th<: present Writ Pelition. No rccorcls whalsoever were frled before the Labour Court in M.P, No. 5l of 2O04 to show that such settlements had been elfected outside the Court ln the absence of such record, there u'ils no occasion for thc Labour Court to consider the same- Sincc the plea of iull and flnal settlement with 32 emplol'ees is un supported by record in M P- No. 5 1 of 1 A I6

2004. arrd the Labour Court cannot bc f:rultc,l Ibr not considering u,hat u,as nevcr plerced bclbre it. 13. Thererlore, Lhi:; Ltr)LrrL lirrds thirr thc orrlcr. of the Hl,clcrab:rd, in M. p. No. .l I of 20Ozl d.rted L:rbour-()orrr-l ll, 18-01 20 l9 does r)ot suller frorn illegalr t1, in lirm iry warrzrnlur!l interference under Article 226 of the Conslrtution o[ lnrli:r. Ac:r_-o rri inglr., this Writ petition fails hcrclrv dr snr issccl. anrl Lhc srrme is OT To SA I]S

14. (loLrsequt:ntl_v, tlre irrtcr.irrr orrlcr rlatrrri 2i, A+ 20 19 slirll(1s viic:tLcd aulolnatic:1lh. //TRUE COPY// SIV-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTI\NT REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER . The P^residrng Olficer, Labour Court ll. Hyderabacl . Two CCs; ro cp FOR SERVTCES r tiqn do*iioijn" :ltot" ()f Tetangana at Hyder;:b;d [oUT] . One CL ro DR I.SUJA f HA, Advocatc tOpUCt UnY CC u SRI AI WAIKAR C BALKF(I!HNn, nd\OLJt( (oI I ,L) pnc Cp o SRt K V RAT\rIANA AdvoriG loPudi"'*" Two CD ,lopies ," 1 2 1 4 5 6 Uty (' ) :, Ll-,:\\' c'., ,r' \ i' 'r: t :') 2 s sEP 20m ,a.,.,,- ,/ HIGH COURT DATED:1 210912025 ORDER WP.No.9066 of 2019 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 4 xA