High Court · 2025

4. tM. Yadaiah, S/o Sri M. Chandraiah, Service Rl/o Yacharam Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....PETITIONERS AND

1. Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of lndia, New Delhi.

2. Defence Research and Development Organisation, rep. by its Director, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.

3. Semiconductor Complex Limited, GAETEC, A Government of lndia Enterprise, Gate No.2, Tech. Building, RCI Vignyana Kancha, Hyderabad- 500 069, rep. by its Executive Director, Sri Dr. P.A. Govindacharyulu.

4. Society for lntegrated Circuit Technology, and Applied Research (SITAR)' C- T,Qutab lnstitutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, New Delhi - 110 016. 5. Sri U.V. Urinikrishnan, Deputy Manager, Human Resources Department, Semiconductor Complex Limited, GAETEC, A Govemment of lndia Enterprise, Gate No.2, Tech. Building, RCl, Vignyana Kancha, Hyderabad- 500 069. 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 .....RESPONDENTS /,/ pleased to issue a W"it, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the petitioners are permanertt workmen of Gallium Arsenide Enabling Technology Centre (GAETEC) under the control of the Respondents 1 to 4 and further that the action of the Respondents in not permitting the Petitiorers to attend to their duties as illegal, contrary to Law and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act apart from being ultrav,ires Article 1 4, 16.and 21 of Constitution of lndia and further that the petitioners are entitled for continuity of service with all attendent benefits and accordingly direct the Respondents to contir ue the Petitioners in service. LA.NO:3 OF 200 4(WPMP. NO: 11825 OF 2004) Petition under Siection 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 Respondents to continue the petitioners in service with all the benefits of service including the seniority. |.A.NO:4 OF 2004(WPMP. NO: 13649 OF 2004 ) 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 respondenl:s to direct the respondent to pay the salaries to the petitioners forthwith. |.A.NO:1 OF 2011 (WPMP. NO: 35445 0F 201 1) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may lte pleased to direct the respondents; to consider the cases of the petitioner for the post of Technician in pursuanr:e to the Notification i.e. Advertisement No. 2/20.1 1, dated 10.O9.2011 with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI K.S.V.SUBBA RAO !9un9el for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEpUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA / Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 & 5 : Ms. G SUDHA Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI V.MADHUSUDANA RAO The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No. 92O3 of 20o,4 ORDER: This wr,t petrtion is filed to declare that the pel-itioners are permanent r,l,orkmen of Ballium Arsenide Enabling Technologz Centre (BAEI'EC) under the control of respondent:; No. 1 to 4 and further that the action of respondents in not permitting the petitioners tc attend to their duties as illegal arrd that the petitioners are entitled for continuity of service with all attendant bet refits ald to direct the respondents t_o continue the petitioner:; in seSvice.

2. Heard 1e :Lrned counsel for petitioners and learrred counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5. No representation lor respondent No.4. Perusecl the record.

3. It is stated that though many of the ernployees of Respondent l.lo.3 organization were absorbed by t:espondent No.4, the petitioners herein were not absorbed ald thus requested this Court to direct the respondents to absorb them. The petitioners u'orked in the respondent No.3 orgarrization for 1 2 years and also got three promotions and in fact their k i l 2 appointment was also by way of notification and by due process of law.

4. In the counter filed by respondent No.4, it is stated that respondent No.4 Organization came into existence from OL.O4.2OO4 and there were total 115 employees worked in Organization and they were given employment by the New Management from OL.O4.2OO4 and out of 115 employees, 94 of the employees who worked with respondent No.3 are absorbed as regular employees of respondent No.4 and 21 employees who worked in respondent No.3 Office were given employment on contract basis for a period of two years and they were also absorbed as regular employees by respondent No.4. The termination of 17 employees including petitioner were not considered for employment as the manpower employed were sufficient for working in respondent No.4 society. It is further stated that they have not given any assurance. There was a resolution to the effect that all the employees of the manufacturing unit should stand transferred to respondent No.4. In the resolution, it is stated that 17 employees are not J recommended lcr consideration. The contractual period of the writ petitioners carrre to al end by 31.03.2004. Rt.spondent No.3 issued terrrination orders on 30.03.2004 ald thev ceased to be the emyrloyees of respondent No.3 and there is no employer and errployee relationship with respondent No.4.

5. The counsel for the petitioners stated that even after merging, the p,31i1i6ners worked for respondent No..l for one month and one rnonth salary is paid to them and not oermitted them to attend the duty from 12.05.2004. He further stated that in viern, of merging of respondent No.3 orgaliza tion with respondent No..1, all the empioyees were terminated on

31.03.2004 excr:pt 17 employees including petitioners ( (

6. The main reason stated by respondent No.4 Organization is that there is ,:nough requirement of marr power. It is stated that later subs;equent notifications were given anrj several employees r,r,ere absorbed into the respondent No.4 rlnd they have absorb ed ,)2 employees out of I I 5 employee s of the respondent No.!i organization but out rightly rejccted lZ employees inclucling petitioners herein for simple rez,.son and I I 4 the said reason stated by respondent No.4 is not satisfactory and it is not acceptable. It is not their case that petitioners are disqualified for any other reason. Respondent No.4 failed to maintain parit5r among the other employees and the rejection of 17 employees out of 1 1 5 employees is not proper. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to direct respondent No.4 Organization to absorb petitioners into their Organization within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this and the petitioners are entitled for a-ll service benefits from 2OO4 to 24.01.2025 7 . With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, il any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been absolute as above' I I Wiil""" the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice SUJOY PAUL' on this -sirtnt"v of March, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. wednesday, tne rweniv /TTRUE COPY// SD/- P. PADM E ANABHA REDDY UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To

1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Defence' Government of lndia' New z. ine'6itector, Defence Research and Development Organisation' Delhi. Kanchanbagh, HYderabad' \ /> -

3. The Executive Director, Semiconductor Complex Limited,, GAE.TEC, A Govemment of lrrdia Enterprise, Gate No.2, Tech. Building, RCI Vignyana Kancha, Hyderabad- 500 069, Sri Dr. P.A. Govindacharyulu.

4. The Society for lntegrated Circuit Technology, and Applied Research (SlfAR), C-7,Qutab lnstitutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, Nerr Delhi - 110 016.

5. Sri U.V. Unnikrishnan, Deputy Manager,, Human Resources Department, Semiconductor Complex Limited, GAETEC , A Government of lndia Enterprise, Gate No.2, Tech. Building, RCl, Vignyana Kancha, llyderabad- 500 069.

6. One CC to SRI K..S.V.SUBBA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC) B. One CC to SRI \/.IUADHUSUDANA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Ms. Cr SUDHA, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two CD Copies SA HIGH COURT DATED:2 610312025 ) ORDER WP.No.9203 of 2004 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. t I ,i ST4 i-(. ApH 2[25 t.ra':..; r.. t rj\i'.: * ( ( a I ).--