THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A. No. 149 of 2001 Judgment (per T Meena Kumari J) : This writ appeal was ﬁled aggrieved against the order dated 7-11-2000 passed in W.P. No. 4938 of 1996 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by conﬁrming the Award in I.D.No.461/93 dt. 28-9-95 on the ﬁle of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the writ petition and workman before the Tribunal. The grievance of the appellant before the Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge was that his services were terminated illegally without complying with the mandatory requirements provided for in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that the management introduced a voluntary scheme to circumvent the provisions of the Act, that he was subjected to harassment and mental agony by illegally transferring him from Hyderabad to Rudrapur near New Delhi and also rejected his request to grant three months time to perform his daughter’s marriage. It is also his grievance that the management forcibly and fraudulently obtained letter from him for voluntary retirement on 30.9.1992 to relieve him from the services. The respondents-management resisted the above application and the writ petition by denying the allegations made by the writ petitioner. After considering the material placed before it, the Judge, Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad passed an award holding that the petitioner therein is not entitled to any relief and also granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Government for making a reference to Industrial Tribunal with regard to the inequality in the ﬁrst and second scheme, if such a reference is permissible under law. Aggrieved against the said Award, the petitioner therein ﬁled the writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present writ appeal. Heard and perused the material available on record including the impugner order of the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge having gone into the facts and circumstances of the case, disbelieved the story of the petitioner that he was conﬁned in a room and made to submit an application to obtain voluntary retirement and also observed that there is no evidence let in by the petitioner and therefore dismissed the writ petition. So, the arguments advanced before this Court with regard to coercive steps of the management to obtain letter from the writ petitioner for obtaining the voluntary retirement scheme is purely a question of fact and the impugned order does not suﬀer from any illegality or irregularity requiring interference at this stage, and accordingly this appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ T MEENA KUMARI J ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN J Dated: 2-07-2008 kvrk 192 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A. No. 149 of 2001 (Judgment of the Division Bench made by Hon’ble Smt. Justice T Meena Kumari) 2nd July 2008