IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.39196 OF 2025 DATE: 19.02.2026 Between:

M/s Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd and another ….Petitioner AND

1. G.Yadaiah and three others …Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the impunged order dated 13.10.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in S.A.No.1 of 2024 in S.E.No.2 of 2018 passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. the Appellate Authority under Secton 48 (3) of the Telangana Shops and Establishment Act, 1988, whereby the petitioners were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,24,49,229/-

towards back wages in favour of the respondent No.1.

2. Heard Sri G.V.S.Ganesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt.P.K.Kalyani, learned Counsel appearing for Sri Amancharla V.Gopala Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.1 herein, who was worked as Foreman(Forklift) in the petitioners’ company and promoted to the post of Maintenance Supervisor in the year, 2000, subsequently he was redesignated as Executive-Maintenance. While the respondent No.1 was working as Supervisor at Maintenance Department, Moula-Ali Branch, Hyderabad, he was terminated from services vide proceedings dated 10.06.2008 on the ground that the respondent No.1 has violated the code of provisions relating to ‘business and financial records and dealing with customers, suppliers and consumers by obtaining forged quotations from the vendors inappropriately.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-company further submits that, being aggrieved by the termination order, the respondent No.1 filed petition under Section 2-A (2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short ‘ID Act’) vide I.D.No.190 of 2009 for reinstatement into service with full back wages and continuity of service and after hearing both sides the Labour Court dismissed the petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein on 05.01.2016 holding that the respondent No.1 does not come with the definition of ‘Workman’ under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner- company further submits that aggrieved dismissal order dated 05.01.2016 in ID No.190 of 2009, the respondent No.1 filed appeal vide SE No.2 of 2018 on the file of the respondent No.3 and the same was allowed on 08.01.2024 by setting aside the termination order and directed the petitioner company to reinstate the respondent No.1 herein with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner company filed Second Appeal under Section 48 (3) of the SE Act before the respondent No.2 duly depositing Rs.26,06,990/- towards back-wages of the respondent No.1 and the appeal was numbered as SA No.1 of

2024.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-company further submits that the respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 in S.A.No.1 of 2024 stating that he is unemployed from the date of termination of his services till date and as such he entitled to the payment of salary from 12.02.2024 i.e. date of filing the Second Appeal and also filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 stating the amount deposited by the petitioner company is inadequate and claimed balance amount of Rs.1,24,49,229/- by adding 10% increment to his last drawn monthly salary from 2008-2009 till 2023-24. Despite the respondent No.1 gainfully employed elsewhere, the respondent No.2 erroneously passed impugned order directing the petitioner company to deposit the amount of Rs.1,24,49,229/- towards purported balance of back-wages within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed praying to set aside the impunged order passed by the respondent No.2.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner company further submits that despite the petitioner showing that the respondent No.1 himself claimed in his professional network profile that he is gainfully employe