ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records in S.E.I.A.No.28 of 2019 on the file of the 2nd respondent i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District and set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District in S.E.I.A.No.28 of 2019, dated 29.02.2020.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioner is employed with the 3rd respondent company on 16.05.2018 in the post of Manager-client-Servicing and his reporting Manager was the 5th respondent.

b) The petitioner filed application under Section 48(1) of the Telangana Shops and Establishment Act, 1988 before the 2nd respondent herein seeking a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to reinstate him into services with full back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits by declaring the action of respondents 3 and 4 in terminating his services w.e.f. 27.03.2019 as arbitrary and illegal.

c) As per terms and conditions of Clause 3 in Annexure B of appointment letter dated 16.05.2018, the petitioner’s probation period expired as on 16.11.2018 and since then the petitioner is continuing to work with the 3rd respondent company as regular and permanent employee.

d) There were certain issues between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. The petitioner brought the same to the knowledge of the 4th respondent and a meeting was held to that effect. But there was no response from the 4th respondent.

e) The petitioner received appraisal letter on 29.01.2019 from the 3rd respondent company revising his salary.

f) All of sudden a meeting was called on 27.03.2019 by the 4th respondent and thereafter, the 4th respondent asked the petitioner to leave the company or relieve from service and that relieved the petitioner on 27.03.2019.

g) Thereafter, the petitioner issued legal notice on 02.05.2019 to respondents 3 to 5 to reinstate him into service, but was denied the same by reply notice dated 24.05.2019. The petitioner filed appeal before the 2nd respondent with condone delay petition and the same was dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Respondent 3 to 5 filed counter affidavit, in brief, is as follows:

a) The writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini since there is efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner by way of second appeal under Section 48(3) of the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. The petitioner failed to satisfy any of the conditions for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The 2nd respondent has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner that the petitioner does not even fall under the purview of ‘employee’ as defined under the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988.

b) The respondents followed the due procedure and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

PERUSED THE RECORD :

5. The order impugned passed under Section 48(1) of the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 29.02.2020 in S.E.I.A. Case No.28/2019 reads as under :

This application has been filed U/s. 48(1) of Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 alleging unlawful termination and seeking reinstatement with full back wages with all attendant benefits and continuity of service. The averments made in the application are as below in brief :

The applicant was appointed as probationer on 15.05.2018 by the respondent management for the post of Manager-Client Servicing to handle a team of Social Media Customer Services, interacting and coordinating with clients and vendors to meet their daily requirements and to implement process improvement plan to enhance the process in coordination with her reporting manager. After probationary period of 6 months, the company served her an appraisal letter on