ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Petitioner No.1 claims to have joined the 4th respondent - Private Company on 24.01.2022 and subsequently, resigned on 06.02.2024 with last working day as 20.02.2024. Despite multiple follow-ups via e mail, she was not issued Relieving Letter i.e. Experience Certificate by the company which is violative of fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Hence, a representation was filed with the office of the respondents. It is stated, she promised to produce the same to the present employer in 90 days as the companies usually take some time to finish the formalities of an employee leaving and issuing the final "full settlement" to the employees. The 4th respondent had also not cleared the rightful wages at Rs.5,80,000/- due to her. 1.2. The case of petitioner No.2 is that he joined in the position of ‘Management Trainee-Growth’ in the 4 th respondent company on 06.07.2023 and as demanded, he signed an employment bond of two years, however, the Company through their Human Resources (HR) personnel abruptly in January 2024 required them to sign and handover signed blank cheque leafs as security to the Employment Bond signed, for which, petitioner did not agree; therefore, on 19.06.2024, he was terminated from the job, without any other reason and without any notice or payment of one month salary in lieu of notice. 1.3. Petitioner No. 3’s case is that he joined in Respondent No.4 company as ‘Management Trainee-Sales’ on 06.07.2023 and signed employment bond of two years by the Company and subsequently, the Company through their Human Resources (HR) personnel abruptly in January 2024 required them to sign and handover signed blank cheque leaves as security to the Employment Bond signed. As he did not agree, on 19.06.2024, he was terminated from the job, without any other reason shown and without any notice or payment of one month salary in lieu of notice. 1.4. According to petitioners, respondent No.4 did not issue appointment letters as per Rule 30 of Telangana Shops & Establishment Rules 1990 read with 1988 Act; they have not created Standing Orders, showing how the working hours, overtime payment, termination, weekly off, etc. are managed and it is nothing but violation of Sections 3, 4 and 5 read with 13 of the Central Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. are managed and it is nothing but violation of Sections 3, 4 and 5 read with 13 of the Central Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It is stated, making employees sign minimum duration Employment Bond, is in violation of Article 23 of Constitution and also violation of Section 5 read with 16 of the Central Bonded Labour System (abolition) Act, 1976. 1.5. Petitioners state that though employees of the same company have already reported to the State, but as no action has been taken, they filed Writ Petition No. 14490 of 2024 in which representation was directed to be disposed of in two weeks. The said order was not complied with by the officers of the State, hence, Contempt Case No. 1523 of 2024 was also filed. The callousness of the State in implementing the provisions of the 1988 Act, 1946 Act, 1976 Act, is affecting millions of employees in private firms, while the State shows all possible hints of being aware of the violations and yet, willfully demonstrating indifference towards the helpless employees in the State, laments petitioners. It is argued that the State for namesake issued notices and kept quiet without imposing penalty on Respondent No.4 for violating the provisions of the law 2. In the counter filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that issuance of Certificate of Service is a statute and the Authority under the Act is Joint Commissioner of Labour who acts as Certifying Officer to certify the Standing Orders submitted by the Employer with consent of the Employees/Trade Unions/representatives of Employees. If any dispute arises between the Employer and Employees on the terms and conditions of either certified standing orders, or under the Model Standing orders, the remedy is elsewhere; If the employer violates any section or rules of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 or Rules 1953, the remedy is only under section 13 of the Act. Therefore Petitioners’ remedy is only to get the prosecution of the Employer for violation of the Act and the Rules. Admittedly, in the present Writ Petition, Petitioners brought to the notice of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone, about the violation of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 and Telangana Industrial Employment (Standing Crders) Rules 1953. Therefore Petitioners’ remedy is only to get the prosecution of the Employer for violation of the Act and the Rules. Admittedly, in the present Writ Petition, Petitioners brought to the notice of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone, about the violation of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 and Telangana Industrial Employment (Standing Crders) Rules 1953. After conducting preliminary enquiry and due process of law, a joint meeting was conducted to settle the issues; after failure Respondent No.3 had taken steps to prosecute the Management for violation of the section 3, 12A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and Rule 26 of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1953). The Government has delegated the powers to Commissioner of Labour, Additional Commissioner of Labour and Joint Commissioners of Labour to prosecute the management for an offence punishable under section 13 of the Act vide G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 30-03-2009 and the said task was assigned to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Rangareddy to file Prosecution against the Respondent No.4. Since Respondent No.3 has already initiated action against Respondent No.4, Petitioners ought to have sought the relief specifically against the officer concerned who has jurisdiction over their establishment. 2.1. As regards the 2 nd prayer, it is stated, from 02-06-2014 onwards, those establishments employing 50 or more employees in their Industrial Establishment have to go for certification of Standing Orders, failure of which the employers have to face prosecution under Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, the employees in the establishments where 50 or more employees were working, have to request their Managements for certification of Standing Orders. If the employer refuses, they have to approach the Certification Officer-cum-Joint Commissioner of Labour concerned, so as to prosecute their employer for non-certification of Standing Orders. In the present case, petitioners as well as the other employees made a complaint before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone and after following the due process of Law, the latter has taken steps to prosecute Respondent No.4. 2.2. With regard to Prayer No.3, it is stated, Petitioners ought to have prayed the relief specifically to the officer concerned who has jurisdiction over their establishment i.e. Certifying Officer cum Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone as required under the statute instead of "State of Telangana". Petitioners pose their grievances as Public Grievance and filed the Present Writ Petition. 2.3. Petitioners pose their grievances as Public Grievance and filed the Present Writ Petition. 2.3. In respect of Prayer No.4, it is stated, if any Employer contrary to their Certified Standing Orders or contrary to the Model standing Orders collects blank cheques, employees may immediately complain to the Certifying Officer concerned for violation of Standing Orders or Model Standing Orders, and the Certifying officer after due verifying the facts may prosecute the employer. Petitioners’ grievance cannot be common to all the Industrial Establishments in the State. If there is any grievance with Respondent No.4 establishment, Petitioners ought to have prayed the relief specifically to the officer concerned, who has Jurisdiction over their establishment. 2.4. In respect of Prayer No.5, Petitioners are attributing their personal grievance as general in nature which is contrary to several Acts and laws. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act is like to constitution to the Establishments. All the Industrial Establishment are not similar as their employment, service conditions, nature of work, disciplinary proceedings, statutory authorities differ from establishment to establishment, Organized sectors to Non-Organized sectors, which include manufacturing, Service Oriented, Corporate, IT & ITES, B??, Contractual, Shops and Establishment etc. Petitioners cannot attribute the same terms and conditions to each and every Industrial establishment or such other establishment. The Certified Standing Orders and terms and conditions of these establishments are not similar. Hence, Petitioners’ plea cannot be considered to all the private employees. 2.5. In respect of the other part of the prayer, as stated above, petitioners have to approach the officer concerned. It is stated, Petitioners have not made out any case in the present Writ Petition to get their relief or grievance. In view of the above said circumstances, it is prayed that this Writ Petition may be dismissed. 3. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.4, it is stated, it is an organisation which provides a digital coupon marketplace in India (the "Services") which includes and is accessible via the website published at www.grabon.in. The Services, for example, allow users to access coupons of certain third-party merchants ("Merchants") for on line use. It offers a specified discount on items/products belonging to the concerned merchants that are widely sold online. 3.1. The Services, for example, allow users to access coupons of certain third-party merchants ("Merchants") for on line use. It offers a specified discount on items/products belonging to the concerned merchants that are widely sold online. 3.1. It is also stated, as per the mutually agreed terms outlined in the employment agreement signed by her at the time of her joining, it is imperative for petitioner No.1 to serve a minimum of 60-day notice period post-resignation acceptance to facilitate the knowledge transfer including clearance of any pending deliverables. She submitted her resignation via e mail dated 06-02-2024 and has since been conspicuously absent from her assigned duties since 20-02-2024, thereby contravening the terms and conditions set-forth in her employment contract. This unauthorized and protracted absence has resulted in considerable disruption to our business operations, leading to quantifiable financial losses, compromised client relationships, and strained team dynamics. Despite numerous attempts by the company's HR Team to communicate this requirement to her both orally and even via e mail dated 21-02-2024, she failed to fulfil her obligations. Hence, she was issued a legal notice on 27-03-2024. 3.2. It is further stated, Petitioner No.2, despite was being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), there has been no significant improvement in her performance and expected progress has not been realized. Hence, Termination Letter was given to her on 19-06-2024. The decision was made after careful consideration of the impact of her performance on the organisation's goals and objectives. 3.3. It is further stated, as regards Petitioner No.3, she was also despite being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), there has been no significant improvement in his performance. Respondent has provided support and opportunities for improvement; however, the expected progress has not been realized. Hence, Termination Letter was given to him on 19-06-2024. The decision was made after careful consideration of the impact of his performance on the organisation's goals and objectives. 3.4. It is specifically stated that Respondent Organisation doesn't fall under any industry or shops and establishments as it is an e-commerce-affiliating market. For any organisation to exist in India, it should show profit generation as a mandate. The decision was made after careful consideration of the impact of his performance on the organisation's goals and objectives. 3.4. It is specifically stated that Respondent Organisation doesn't fall under any industry or shops and establishments as it is an e-commerce-affiliating market. For any organisation to exist in India, it should show profit generation as a mandate. Suppose the Labour Court directs 15 days Notice or 15 days of Buy-Out instead of 2 months Notice Period, in that case, Many Highly Critical Employees will opt for that shortcut path and the Business will be at a loss as there will be No Business Continuity due to lack of knowledge transition and appropriate Resource Replacement in time within these narrow 15 days and then the Organisation will collapse in a spiral downward path. It is further stated, no cheques were collected from neither of Petitioners by Respondent Organisation. The concept of Cheques is raised as a security measure as mentioned in the employment agreement which is voluntary and of free will. Any kind of communication between employers and employees to connect for work purposes is done only through official e-mails or Skype and they cannot be held responsible for the personal chats exchanged between the employees on any social media platform, hence, this respondent cannot be held responsible for the morals and behaviour of the employees in their personal lives and their social lives especially outside the office premises. 3.5. It is also stated, Offer letter is only an invitation letter for the employee to reach the Organisation on the Date of Joining; the Employee is requested to read and understand all the terms and conditions in the employment agreement and the add-on documents (between the respective and The Organisation) and then willingly sign all the documents if they wish to proceed with the employment. Petitioner No.1 has committed breach of contract by contravening the terms and conditions mentioned in and signed by her in the Employment and Agreement. Petitioners 2 and 3 were terminated as they failed to improve their performance ever after the PIP. Hence, this respondent seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri Vijay Gopal, learned Government Pleader for Labour on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3 and Sri G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the 4 th respondent. 5. Petitioners 2 and 3 were terminated as they failed to improve their performance ever after the PIP. Hence, this respondent seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri Vijay Gopal, learned Government Pleader for Labour on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3 and Sri G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the 4 th respondent. 5. In the instant case, to address the issue on hand, it is relevant to extract some of the provisions of the Acts. The legislative Provisions pertaining to "Certificate of Service": 24. The petitioner submits that the Central legislation i.e. the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 (1946 Act), Section 2 (e) Industrial Establishment as follows; (1) (ii) (a) are as follows; (e) "industrial establishment" means (i) an industrial establishment as defined in clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, or (ii) a factory as defined in clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948, or ] (iii) a railway as defined in clause (4) of Section 2 of the Indian Railway Act, 1890, or (iv) the establishment of a person who, for the purpose of fulfilling a contract with the owner of any industrial establishment, employs workmen; Andhra Pradesh (v) Such other establishment, as the State Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, specify in this behafl, which does not fall within any of Sub-clauses (i) to (iv), and in respect of which the State Government is the appropriate Government" vide Andra Pradesh Act No. 9 of 1969 25. I submit that the Central legislation i.e. the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946, read (Act No. 20 of 1946) under which the Rules issued viz. Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules, 1946, Schedule 1 (Applicable to Industries other than coal mines), Rule 16 and Schedule 1B (Applicable to All Industries) Rule (1) (ii) (a) are as follows; SCHEDULE I [MODEL STANDING ORDERS IN RESPECT OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT NOT BEING INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN COAL MINES] Certificate on termination of service.-Every permanent workman shall be entitled to a service certificate at the time of his dismissal, discharge or retirement from service. SCHEDULE IB MODEL STANDING ORDERS ON ADDITIONAL ITEMS APPLICABLE TO ALL INDUSTRIES (1) (ii) Certification of service.-- (a) Every workman shall be entitled to a service certificate, specifying the nature of work (designation) and the period of employment (indicating the days, months, years) at the time of discharge, termination, retirement or resignation from service. The said laws are applicable to any company which has 50 employees or more employed by them as per GO Ms. No. 33, dated 5th July 1999, issued by the Respondent Labour Department (Ex: P9) (Emphasis Provided) 26. I submit that as per section 47, Explanation (2) of Telangana State Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 (1988 Act), an employee may voluntarily resign from employment by giving notice of at least 15 days (2) An employee who has completed the age of sixty years or who is physically or mentally unfit having been so declared by a Registered Medical Practitioner or who wants to retire on medical grounds or to resign his service may give up his employment after giving to his employer notice of atleast fifteen days and where no such notice is given, the service compensation payable to him shall be forfeited to the extent of fifteen days inlieu of the notice. 27. The petitioner submits that the Section 2 (ii) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 defined Industrial Establishment as follows: (ii) " industrial or other establishment" means] any- (a) tramway service, or motor transport service engaged in carrying passenger or goods or both by road for hire or reward; (aa) air transport service other than such service belonging to, or exclusively employed in the military, naval or air forces of the Union or the Civil Aviation Department of the Government of India; (b) dock, wharf or jetty. ((c) inland vessel, mechanically propelled;) (d) mine, quarry or oilfield; (e) plantation; (f) workshop or other establishment in which articles are produced, adapted or manufactured, with a view to their use, transport or sale; (g) establishment in which any work relating to the construction, development or maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or canals, or relating to operation connected with navigation, irrigation, development or maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or mission and distribution of electricity or any other form of power is being carried on;] (h) any other establishment or class of establishment which [appropriate Government] may, having regard to the nature thereof, the need for protection of persons employed therein and other relevant circumstances, specify, by notification in the Official Gazette;) (iia) "mine" has the meaning assigned to it in clause (j) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952); 28. The petitioner submits that the Section 66 (Contracting out) of Telangana Shops and Establishments Act 1988, makes any contract contrary to the provisions of the 1988 Act null and void Section 47, Explanation (2) An employee who has completed the age of sixty years or who is physically or mentally unfit having been so declared by a Registered Medical Practitioner or who wants to retire on medical grounds or to resign his service may give up his employment after giving to his employer notice of atleast fifteen days and where no such notice is given, the service compensation payable to him shall be forfeited to the extent of fifteen days in lieu days and where no such notice is given, the service compensation of the notice 66. Contracting out :- Any contract or agreement, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby an employee relinquishes any right conferred by this Act shall be null and void in so far as it purports to deprive him of such right. 6. It is the main contention of petitioners that inaction on the part of Respondent No.4 in giving Certificate of Service is in violation of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1946 Act. In addition, Respondent No.4 is not giving the relieving letter thereby obstructing petitioners to apply for a new job which is violation of fundamental rights. It is the main contention of petitioners that inaction on the part of Respondent No.4 in giving Certificate of Service is in violation of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1946 Act. In addition, Respondent No.4 is not giving the relieving letter thereby obstructing petitioners to apply for a new job which is violation of fundamental rights. According to petitioners, the Certificate of Service is a statutory right of an employee under Rule 3(i) and (ii) of the 1953 Rules read with Schedule I of the said Rules. Further, the said Rules are applicable to establishments with 50 or more workmen employed in the said Organisation. The main grievance of petitioners is that the 4 th respondent has forced petitioners to give blank cheques for getting employment; in addition to the same, Respondent No.4 obtained employment bonds which are illegal, according to petitioners, in terms of Sections 5 and 16 of the 1976 Act. Therefore, petitioners requested Respondents 1 to 3 to take action as per Section 13(1) of the 1946 Act. It is the specific contention of petitioners that Respondent No.4 failed to submit the Standing Orders regarding the working hours, overtime payment, termination, weekly-off, etcetera as mandated under Sections 3, 4 and 5 read with Section 13 of the 1946 Act. 7. Refuting the said contentions, Respondents 1 to 3 contend that they have already initiated action against Respondent No.4 by addressing letters dated 23.07.2024 and 28.07.2024 asking them as to why action should not be initiated for violation of the Act and the Rules. Further, it is contended that in respect of the directions sought by petitioners are concerned, the same are not maintainable as they are in the nature of public interest, as such, petitioners, if so advised, may raise the same in Writ Petition under Public Interest Litigation but not in the present case. 8. It is to be noted that Respondent No.4 at para 4 of the counter specifically admitted that cheques were collected as a security measure in respect of employment agreement which is voluntary and free will of the employee. 8. It is to be noted that Respondent No.4 at para 4 of the counter specifically admitted that cheques were collected as a security measure in respect of employment agreement which is voluntary and free will of the employee. This Court is loathe to understand that such an averment made by Respondent No.4 since in the first line of para 8 of the counter, it is stated that no cheques were collected from neither of petitioners by respdnent organization and in continuation, it is stated that the concept of cheques is raised as a security measure as mentioned in the employment agreement. This is a clear contradiction on the part of Respondent No.4 to the provisions of the 1946 Act as well as 1988 Act read with Rules made thereunder. Further, as noted, it is rightly contended by petitioners that Respondent No.4 has never created Standing Orders in terms of Sections 3 to 5 read with Section 13 of the 1946 Act, since, admittedly, the employees of Respondent No.4 Organisation are more than 50; the said contention of petitioners that A.P. Industrial Employment Standing Orders, 1953 are applicable cannot be brushed aside. 9. In the instant case, admittedly, Respondent No.4 has not framed any Standing Orders, as such when there is no framing of Standing Orders, importantly Standing Orders as enshrined in Schedules I and II B of the 1946 Act, read with 1946 Rules are applicable automatically. 10. In any event, the flaws committed by Respondent No.4 are brought to the notice of Respondents 1 to 3, however, the latter as an eye wash, had only issued notice vide letter dated 23.07.2024 and also thereafter, a show cause notice dated 28.07.2024. However, no document is placed either by Respondents 1 to 3 or Respondent No.4 as to any further action initiated in respect of the specific complaints raised by petitioners. 11. This Court also notes the fact that the concept of duress where a contract or agreement was entered by one of the parties because of the coercion under illegitimate threat, that contracts are invalid in the eye of law and also voidable (see National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara PolyFab (P) Ltd. , (2009) 1 SCC 267 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dicitex Furnishing Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 621 and Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Puri Constructions (P) Ltd. , 2025 SCC On Line SC 830 ). Ltd. v. Boghara PolyFab (P) Ltd. , (2009) 1 SCC 267 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dicitex Furnishing Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 621 and Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Puri Constructions (P) Ltd. , 2025 SCC On Line SC 830 ). In the instant case, alluring employment on the condition of giving blank cheques to Respondent No.4 - Organisation is nothing but a contract under duress. Respondent No.4 is exploiting the helplessness of petitioners in obtaining employment by demanding blank cheques. The said fact is also countenanced by the averments made in para 8 of the counter of Respondent No.4. As such, this Court feels that instead of issuing show cause notice dated 27.10.2024 to Respondent No.4 and leaving the matter there, Respondents 1 to 3 ought to have proceeded further and concluded the same after obtaining necessary explanation from the Organisation. 12. In the light of the overall detailed discussion, this Court finds the inaction on the part of Respondents 1 to 3 is not justifiable more particularly when petitioners being employees of Respondent No.4 are running from pillar to post to redress their grievances. Respondents 1 to 3 are therefore, directed to conclude the action initiated against Respondent No.4 after obtaining necessary explanation, in accordance with law. 13. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. 14. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.