IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.4939 of 2010 Between: Hindustan Aeronautical Limited Telangana Employees Union, Regd.No.B.2659 At A-865, HAL Township, Balanagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its President M.S.Ramulu @ Ramulu Yadav. ..... Petitioner AND 1.Government of India, Ministry of Industries, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Chalakani Venkat Yadav Counsel for Respondent No.1: Standing Counsel for Central Government Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Ms.V.Umadevi Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 27-02-2010, whereby respondent No.2 rejected the request of the petitioner- Union to grant permission to conduct a cultural programme to raise voice of Telangana. In the impugned order of rejection, several reasons are assigned, which include the following: “(v) The employees of HAL are bound by the Standing Orders of the company and commission of certain acts by the employees as notified under the standing Orders shall be treated as misconduct. Clause-26 (30) of the Standing Order, prohibits employees of HAL from indulging in any political activities within the company premises. (vi) Clause-26 (50) of the Standing Orders, prohibits the employees of HAL from taking part in or assisting in any manner, any movement / agitation or demonstration of a political nature within the premises of the company. (vii) It may be noted that, the proposed programme planned to be organized in the name of Telangana Dhoom Dhaam, by inviting political leaders, who are actively pursuing the political movement for a separate State of Telangana, and therefore, the programme proposed to be organized by you in the premises of HAL, bears the character of movement / agitation /demonstration of a political nature within the premises of the company. (viii) The employees of the company who are represented by the Trade Union under your Presidentship are not permitted to take part or assist in the programme titled as Telangana Dhoom Dhaam clearly indicating the features of movement of a Political nature, within the premises of the establishment of HAL belonging to the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, for the reasons stated above. (ix) Further, the allegation of the Union that, the Management has accorded permission for conducting cultural and related programmes in the past and there is no justification for not permitting the Telangana HAL Employees Union to conduct the proposed programme on 03/03/2010, is not tenable. The Management encourages conducting cultural programmes as part of its Welfare Policy, for providing recreation to the Employees / their family members. However, the proposed Telangana Dhoom-Dham is more of a political platform, as is evident from the programme scheduled. Hence, the management of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited being a Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, cannot grant permission to use its premises for conducting programmes bearing the nature and character of Political agitation, which will be viewed as a partisan approach of the Management by other sections of the Society.” Having heard Sri C.Venkat Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Union, and considered the reasons, based on which the permission has been rejected, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for interference by this Court. The petitioner, being a Trade Union, is not expected to undertake the activities as aforesaid within the Trade Union premises or in the premises of the employer. While the freedom of the members of the petitioner-Union as individual citizens to express their views cannot be curtailed, the atmosphere within the premises of the Undertaking under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, cannot be allowed to be vitiated. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.6360 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 3rd March, 2010 lur