1. G.V.Raghava Reddy S/o.Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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 :rij::B '" powers available under Section 10 of the lndustrial Disputes Acl, 1947 to initiate conciliation proceedings. t.A. NO 1 OF 201(WPMP. NO: 44010 OF 20171 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. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. JURISLIT LAW LLP Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SMT. MOGILI ANAVENI The Court made the following: ORDER -. 'e,ZPW'f ri - .-. .'1:, ._::r r... J -t- I TH o L I sTI EN AV w RIT P ON N o .3 426 o F 2 oL7 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief : .'..'folssueanappropria€Writ,orderorDirection more particularty one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of the j,dRespondentindischarginghisdutiesunderthe Industrial Disputes Act' 1947 in resolving the dispute between the petitioners and the 4th respondent as illegat, arbitrarY and consequently direct the 3'd respondent to exercise the powers available under Section 10 of the Industriat Disputes Act' 1947 to initiate conciliation proceedings and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court maY deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case'"

2. Heard M/s lurislit Law LLP' learned counsel for the petitioners' and the learned Government Pleader for Labour' appearing for the respondents' Perused the material available on record' 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners were ondent No.4 - Tech Mahindra - having rendered for nearly 10 years' It is alleged that respondent ue pressure on the petitioners to resign without lterminationorders,communicatingonlythrough emPloYees of resP No.4 exerted und continuous service issuing anY forma I { 2 telephonic instructions. petitioner No.1 was terminated backend process while on sanctioned leave, using 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. his login through a

4. 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.

5. It is further case of representatio n s, respondent duties vested in him even dated 21.06.2013 had been restoring his jurisdiction the petitioners that despite repeated No.3 failed to discharge the statutory after the operation of G.O.Ms.No.22, stayed by this Hon,ble Court, thereby under the Telangana Shops and 1 Establishments Act, 1988' Aggrieved by the same' the petitioners filed the Present Writ Petition'

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a dispute arose between the petitioners and respondent No 4 -Tech Mahindra andthatthematterwasplacedbeforerespondentNo.3-the]oint No.3 did not refer Commissioner of Labour' However' respondent 10 of the Industrial the matter to the Labour Court under Section Disputes Acl, 1947. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition may be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Labour Court for appropriate relief'

7. Learned Government Pleader for Labour did not oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners' In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for 8. the respective parues, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by granting riberty to the petitioners to approach the Labour Court for redressal of their grievance' in accordance with

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of' granting liberty the petitioners to approach the Labour Court' However, it is from the date of made clear that the period of consumption i'e' filing of the Writ Petition on 24' 10'2017 till its disPosal i.e', I I T I I 4

09.09.2025 shall be excluded while computing the delay in approaching the Labour Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY/ I SD/- P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSSTANT REGISTRAR A SECT|ON OFFTCER t" """1 ( : : B :i\)i tsd,tfl ' lffi gl?;ltX J:l?:p"lffi : ulfffi y o,o y m e n t rra i n i ns ' I+t?"flHTfiif:,.or1-abour' Government or retangana Anjaiah Bhavan, 3. The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Governr nent of relangana Anjaiah enavan, Fircli iioiis nyoerruaa. 4. One CC to M/s. JUR|SL|T LAW LLp, Advocates tOpUCl t "' Labour, Hish court ror the State or rerangana at ly8"r:8io tioSi

6. One CC to S|VT. MOGtLt ANAVEN|, Advocate tOpUCl 7. fwo CD Copies MP PVL W HIGH COURT DATED:0910912025 -' : j:':':-l:?:-T'r'- , '..-':.'-'' , i:- S;;fi;:::,.- ".'-<..) -c r:-:l'. ' r._) '': ,\ li : z4sEPzffi :t,l :..:.i ji i/ -: : .1, .,. 'r '... rl{ - ;. .., ' \-":t'i \cvr';'; ; 1 -lr.; : :'' ..:ri.t..-i:]!t:-!.._r'. ORDER WP.No.35426 ot 2017 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q ?^\