IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD *****

WRIT PETITION NO.9208 of 2025 Between:

Salvaji Venkata Ramana Rao …Petitioner AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories Department, Govt. of Telangana, Hyderabad and three others …Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 09.07.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes/No marked to Law Reports/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship wish to : Yes/No see the fair copy of judgment _____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH + WRIT PETITION NO.9208 of 2025 %Dated 09.07.2025 Between :

# Salvaji Venkata Ramana Rao …Petitioner and

1. $ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories Department, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad and three others …Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Salvaji Raja Shekar Rao ^ Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Assistant Government Pleader for for Labour and Employment Counsel for Respondent No.4 : R.Anurag < GIST :

> HEAD NOTE :

? Cases referred :

1. (2006) 10 SCC 410

2. 1995 Supp (1) SCC 678

3. 2004 (1) LLN 911

4. 2007 SCC Online AP 1113 5. 2024 SCC Online TS 1936 6. 2008 SCC Online Mad 902 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.9208 of 2025

ORDER:

1. Heard Sri Salvaji Raja Shekar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour and Employment appearing for the respondent No.3 and Sri R.Anurag, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 and perused the record.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (NPDTCL) and a Member of the respondent No.4/Telangana Electricity Employees 1104 Union. The respondent No.4 conducted an Emergency Central Executive Meeting on 11.03.2025, wherein they took a decision to conduct the elections for the Central Executive Committee Members. On the next day i.e. on 12.03.2025 the respondent No.4 issued an election Notification indicating that the Fifth State General Council Meeting on 27.03.2025 for electing Central Executive Committee Members. Subsequently, on 17.03.2025 another election notification was issued stating that the 5th Session of the State General Council would be held on 27.03.2025 and Election of Office bearers also on the same date.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Election Notifications issued on 12.03.2025 and 17.03.2025 lacks procedural fairness, such as no independent Election Officer was appointed, no public notice of the Election Notification was issued, no minimum time gap for election was given, no publication of voters list, no procedure was contemplated for nominations and the scrutiny process was mentioned in the election notification. Most of the Members including the petitioner were denied the opportunity to participate, nominate or contest.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that Clause 23(I) and 30 (5) of the Bye-laws of the respondent No.4 specifies the mode of election. As per the said clauses the respondent No.4 has to appoint a Chairman for conducting the elections and further all the elections at all levels had to be through secret ballot only. That being the case, the incumbent office bearers of the respondent No.4 had even today not appointed any person as Chairman to conduct the elections and no steps were taken to conduct elections through secret ballot.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.4 flouted all the Rules and the incumbent office bearers are trying to get themselves elected illegally. Further, the three-year term of the present office bearers was completed on 24.10.2024. The incumbent office bearers are illegally continuing in the present position