IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4995 of 2008 Between: 1 L.Rekhya S/o. Baddiya O/o. Nalgonda Dist. Coop. Central Bank Ltd., Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 2 T.Buchi Ramulu S/o. Badraiah O/o. Nalgonda Dist. Coop. Central Bank Ltd., Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3 S.Narsimha Swamy S/o. Rangaiah O/o. Nalgonda Dist. Coop. Central Bank Ltd., Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 4 V.Sanjeeva S/o. Narsaiah O/o. Nalgonda Dist. Coop. Central Bank Ltd., Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 5 Mohd. Ziauddin S/o. Shamshuddin O/o. Nalgonda Dist. Coop. Central Bank Ltd., Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 6 P.Badraiah S/o. Mallaiah O/o. Nalgonda Dist. Coop. Central Bank Ltd., Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The General Manager Nalgonda District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Nalgonda, Nalgonda Dist. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a direction, writ, order or orders particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners case as a preferential candidates under Section 25 H of Industrial Dispute Act is arbitrary and illegal and a direction may be issued to consider the case of the petitioners under section 25 H of ID Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR.AMARNATH GOUD THODUPUNURI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4995 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners were employed, in one capacity or the other, by the Nalgonda District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, respondent herein. However, they were retrenched in the year 1995. The petitioners initially approached this Court, against the orders of retrenchment, and thereafter, the labour Court. The cases instituted by the petitioners before the labour Court were rejected. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.6662 of 2003 and batch and the same is said to be pending. The petitioners state that the respondent is proposing to recruit persons, on account of the fact that the ban on such appointment has been lifted by the Government. It is their case that the vacancies, which they occupied on earlier occasion, are being filled up. The petitioners claim that their cases be considered for filling up of the vacancies, as provided for under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). Heard Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T.Amarnath Goud, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioners were appointed by the respondent, but were retrenched, be it, on account of lack of vacancies or other reasons. The proceedings initiated by the petitioners against the orders of retrenchment are pending before this Court. That, however, is a different aspect. Section 25-H of the Act mandates that whenever an employee is retrenched, he shall be entitled to be considered in the event of the employer choosing to fill up the vacancy, at a subsequent stage. Since, there is no dispute that the petitioners have been retrenched from service, their right under Section 25-H of the Act needs to be respected, in the event of the respondent recruiting persons against the vacancies, that were earlier occupied by the petitioners. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that as and when the respondent proposes to fill the vacancies, that were earlier occupied by the petitioners, the cases of the petitioners shall also be considered in terms of Section 25-H of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 10.03.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4995 of 2008 Date: 10.03.2008