A. GOPAL REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN these two writ petitions the Circular No. P. 14/2643/ir/188 dated 11-2-2000 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential charge-sheets issued for disobeying the instructions are challenged. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to filing these writ petitions are as under:

( 3 ) IN W. P. No. 1977 of 2001 the 1st petitioner is working as Head-Overman under the control of the 3rd respondent and the 2nd petitioner is working as Welder under the control of the 4th respondent. Both the petitioners are residents of Kothagudem town. While so, the 2nd respondent issued impugned circular dated 11-2-2000 imposing restriction on the employees of the Company from contesting in the elections to the Parliament/legislative Assembly/ Municipalities/panchayat Raj Institutions and other local bodies while continuing as employees of the Company. The said circular further states that if an employee wishes to contest in any of the abovementioned elections, he has to submit unconditional resignation before filing his nomination. It is also stated that the respondent-Company also assured to the trade unions that the said circular will not be given effect to. Meanwhile, the election process to the Kothagudem Municipality was already commenced and the election to the said Municipality was taken place on 9-3-2000. The petitioners, who have contested as Ward Councillors from Ward Nos. 16 and 17 of the Kothagudem Municipality have won the election. The 1st petitioner was also elected as Vice-Chairman of the said Municipality. While so, the petitioners 1 and 2 were served with charge-sheets dated 26-7-2000 and 25-7-2000 respectively proposing to take disciplinary action against them,

( 4 ) THE petitioners are 3 in number in W. P. No. 10847 of 2001. The 1st petitioner is working as General Mazdoor under the control of the 3rd respondent and the petitioners 2 and 3 are working as Charger Safety Lamp and Head-Overman respectively under the control of the 4th respondent and all of them are residents of Yellandu town. The 1 st petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Yellandu Municipality in the previous elections held in the year 1995 and he completed his term successfully. The 2nd petitioner was elected as Councillor in the year 1981 and 1987 and also elected as Vice-Chairman during the period 1987-1992 to the Yellandu Municipality. The petitioners 1 to 3 contested as Ward Councillors from Ward Nos. 8th, 2nd and 6th respectively of the Yellandu Municipality in the elections held on 9-3-2000 and won the same. As the petitioners 1 to 3 have contested the elections contrary to the Circular dated 11-2-2000. They were issued with charge-sheets dated 3-8-2000, 2-8-2000 and 2-8-2000 respectively.

( 5 ) IT is stated by the petitioners that on issuance of the Circular Memo dated 11-2-2000 the trade unions representing the workers have represented the matter before the 1st respondent requesting not to give effect the said Circular stating that the restrictions imposed in the Circular Memo are not finding place in the Certified Standing Orders of the Company, and from the date of its inception there was no restrictions on the employees from contesting the elections to the local bodies. In the absence of any prohibition, prohibiting or imposing restrictions for contesting the elections as specified in the Standing Order, the same cannot be enforced. The impugned Circular amounts to amending the Standing Orders and the same cannot be done without following the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short the Act 20/46 ). In view of the same, the Circular Memo cannot be enforced and the consequential charge-sheets issued by the 1st respondent are liable to be set aside.

( 6 ) IN opposing the claim of the petitioners the respondent-Company filed a counter stating that the respondent organization

Click Here to Read the rest of this document