THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25424 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was employed on work charge basis and by 2010, he was working as In-charge Assistant Engineer (TWI) in A.P.Educational Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, the respondent herein. Through order, dated 07.04.2010, the first respo retrenched the petitioner from service. The same is challenged in thi petition. The petitioner contends that several allegations of miscon misbehaviour and indiscipline, were made and an order of retrenchm passed, without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F o Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). Sri S.Sri Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submit the petitioner was subjected to harassment at various stages and ultim the impugned order was passed. He contends that on an earlier occa the petitioner was transferred to a distant place and when the same challenged, the impugned order was passed as a vindictive measure. learned counsel further submits that the order dos not conform to Sectio F of the Act. Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respond on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has resorted to several a indiscipline, so much so fabricated an order of regularization of services contends that not only one-month salary in lieu of notice, but als retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 25-F(b) of th was paid. The petitioner was working as an In-charge Assistant Engineer Corporation. It appears that several proceedings are initiated agains petitioner and on number of occasions, he approached this Court. impugned order is passed by invoking Section 25-F of the Act. The refers to payment of one-month salary. However, there is no referen payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F(b) of the The learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court an indepe order, dated 07.04.2010, through which, the retrenchment compensat Rs.59,136/- was offered and adjusted towards the amount due from petitioner. Assuming that the respondents have complied with Section 25 the Act in the matter of payment of one-month salary and retrench compensation, there are certain other defects. The order refers t allegations of misbehaviour, misconduct, misappropriation and derelict duties. When such allegations are made, an employee can be rem from service only if they are proved in domestic enquiry. Retrench simplicitor should not make any reference to such allegations and it w amount to attaching stigma. The petitioner contends that his service has been regularized th order, dated 05.06.1999. However, the respondents placed a letter is by one G.J.Simon in whose name the said order was passed to the that such order was not passed by him at all. However, these ar matters, which need to be enquired in accordance with law. The respondents can initiate disciplinary proceedings and im punishment in accordance with law, if the charges are proved and o other hand, if retrenchment alone is resorted to, reference should n made to any allegations. The learned Standing Counsel submit that the petition troublesome and has created many problems in the Organisation, so so, he has manhandled his superior officials. Such acts canno countenanced. If that be so, it shall be open to the respondents to tra the petitioner to any place of their choice. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order aside. It is left open to the respondents to – (a) pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by initiating disciplinary proceedings or by inv Section 25-F of the Act, and (b) to transfer the petitioner to any place of their choic the petitioner shall have no option, except to work a place, without any protest. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD Date:20.10.2010 VGB