IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI WRIT PETITION No.9145 of 2006

16 MARCH, 2026 Between:

Mohd. Shafi … Petitioner AND M/s. Tecumesh Products India Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Balanagar Township, Hyderabad – 500 037 and two others …Respondents : O R D E R :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records from the 3^rd respondent in connection with the award dated 28.06.2005 in I.D.No.56/2001 published in the G.O.Rt.No.2099, dated 18.10.2005 published in Labour Court on 04.02.2006 and received by the petitioner and by quashing the same direct reinstatement, together with back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential and attendant benefits and pass such other order…”

2. Heard Mrs. Mercy Vijaya, learned counsel representing Mr. P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.Ravi Shankar Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and

2. Perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. The petitioner initially joined M/s. Sriram Refrigeration Industries Limited, Balanagar, as a Driver in the year 1982 on temporary basis and his services were regularized on 28.02.1991. In the year 1993, the management and affairs of the said Company, including its assets, liabilities and staff, were taken over by respondent No.1.

3.2. The management of respondent No.1 introduced a voluntary retirement scheme vide proceedings dated 29.10.1992, applicable to all workers, staff and officers of the then Sriram Refrigeration Industries Limited, Balanagar, who had completed ten years of service or attained the age of 40 years.

3.3. Although the petitioner had neither completed the minimum service of 10 years nor attained the age of 40 years, he submitted an application, dated 13.04.1993 seeking voluntary retirement under the ex gratia scheme. The said application was accepted by the management of respondent No.1 vide letter, dated 10.04.1993 and his accounts were duly settled by the Accounts Department.

3.4. Two days thereafter, the petitioner was re-engaged into service by respondent No.1 through respondent No.2-Contractor as a Driver and he was orally retrenched from service on 20.03.1999, without assigning any reasons and issuing any notice and without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the ‘Act’).

3.5. Aggrieved by the said illegal retrenchment, he approached respondent No.3 by filing I.D.No.56 of 2001. However, the same was dismissed on 28.06.2005. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Following are the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1. Respondent No.1, having engaged the petitioner after his voluntary retirement through respondent No.2 and subsequently retrenched him after about 14 months of service, has acted in clear violation of Section 25(f) of the Act. The Labour Court dismissed the I.D. filed by the petitioner on technical grounds, which is contrary to law and unsustainable.

4.2. The petitioner was, in fact, not willing to opt for the voluntary retirement scheme and the said scheme was not even applicable to him. However, the management of the erstwhile Company, under the pretext of closure of the establishment, obtained the signatures of the petitioner on blank printed papers by assuring him that he would be re-engaged within two days and will be continued in service of respondent No.1 up to 20.03.1999. Subsequently, the said blank documents were filled up by the management and misrepresented as an application submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement under the ex gratia scheme. It is further contended that the petitioner, being an illiterate workman, signed the documents without understanding the contents or implications and was forcibly made to retire under the guise of voluntary retirement scheme by ad