IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.3424 OF 2024 THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX Between:

VST Industries Ltd., rep. by its Company Secretary and VP-Legal & Secretarial, Azamabad, Hyderabad.

… Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Labour Department, Hyderabad and (5) others.

… Respondents

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in respect of reference vide proceedings No.G2/5187/2023 dated 2.1.2024 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and quash the same.

2. Heard Smt.Challa Kiranmayee, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-II for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri V.Venkat Mayur for respondent No.6. With their consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal.

3. Petitioner Company is a Company incorporated on 19.11.1930 under the Hyderabad Companies Act-IV of 1320 Fasli (now governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013) and engaged in the business and manufacture and sale of cigarettes. Respondent No.6 was a workman employed with the petitioner Company since 1983 and he was served with retirement notice dated 4.1.2021 informing that he was due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2021. Thereafter, respondent No.6 has submitted plethora of documents making a claim in order to extend his tenure beyond the age of superannuation. He also approached this Court by way of filing number of writ petitions. In W.A.No.722 of 2023, this Court vide judgment dated 24.7.2023, observed that when the respondent No.6 has approached the Conciliation Officer by raising a dispute, he must wait till the Conciliation Officer submits a report.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Company submits that pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench in the above Writ Appeal, the respondent No.4 issued notice dated 9.10.2023 informing the petitioner that the joint meeting is fixed on 16.10.2023 at 11.30 a.m. as a consequence of representation of respondent No.6. In reply thereto, petitioner company addressed letter dated 16.10.2023 to respondent No.4, seeking four week’s time for the joint hearing on the ground that the Company’s authorized representative was not in a position to attend the meeting due to personal exigencies. Subsequently, on 6.11.2023, respondent No.4 issued notice vide letter No.B/3024/2023 (issue admitted in conciliation), that conciliation proceedings has commenced with effect from 6.11.2023 and the petitioner company was required to attend the said conciliation meeting on 14.11.2023 at 11.30 a.m. Thereafter, on 14.11.2023, petitioner addressed letter to respondent No.4 requesting for two more weeks adjournment on the ground that the Company’s authorized representative was unable to attend the joint meeting as he has slipped and fell down. Thereafter, there was no intimation to the petitioner regarding the next date of hearing and to the utter surprise, respondent No.4 addressed letter to respondent No.3 that the conciliation proceedings under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) are closed. Consequently, the respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 2.1.2024, referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act and thereafter, respondent No.2-Industrial Tribunal issued the impugned notice dated 11.1.2024 in I.D.No.1 of 2024, summoning the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal on

12.2.2024 at 10.30 a.m. Hence this writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the mandate in the provision, the conciliation was evidently closed and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication without according an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Company, which is in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, petiti