THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRI T PETI TI ON No.35426 OF 2017

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…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^rd Respondent in discharging his duties under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in resolving the dispute between the petitioners and the 4^th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to exercise the powers available under Section 10 of the Industrial 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 Jurislit 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 employees of respondent No.4 – Tech Mahindra – having rendered continuous service for nearly 10 years. It is alleged that respondent No.4 exerted undue pressure on the petitioners to resign without issuing any formal termination orders, communicating only through telephonic instructions. Petitioner No.1 was terminated through a backend process while on sanctioned leave, using his login credentials without consent. Petitioner No.2 was similarly terminated while on medical leave by way of a letter sent to his native address.

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 conciliation proceedings nor referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Instead, respondent No.3 merely forwarded the remarks received from respondent No.4 to the petitioners and advised them to approach the Labour Court independently.

5. It is further case of the petitioners that despite repeated representations, respondent No.3 failed to discharge the statutory duties vested in him even after the operation of G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 21.06.2013 had been stayed by this Hon’ble Court, thereby restoring his jurisdiction under the Telangana Shops and 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 and that the matter was placed before respondent No.3 - the Joint Commissioner of Labour. However, respondent No.3 did not refer the matter to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 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.

8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Labour Court for redressal of their grievance, in accordance with law.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Labour Court. However, it is made clear that the period of consumption i.e. from the date of filing of the Writ Petition on 24.10.2017 till its disposal i.e., 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