The Chairman, Pri. Agrl.Coop. Soc. Ltd., v. Sri Vittanala Chandra Rao And 2 ORS,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No. 22724 OF 2004 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call for records relating to and connected with case No. APSA/4/04 dated 26-10-2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada, East Godavari District-respondent No. 2 and set aside the same and consequently declare orders of respondent No. 2 in APSA/4/04 dated 26-10-2004 and also orders of the Labour Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District-respondent No. 3 dated 23-03-2004 passed in case No. APSE/1/2002 as arbitrary and contrary to the bylaws of the petitioner-society and also the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 18692 of 2001 dated 22-11-2001 and the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No. 7038 of 2002 dated 30-09-2002.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-workman.

3.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 1-workman was employed with the petitioner as a clerk on 01-03-1969 on a monthly salary of Rs.60/- and he has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-2001. All the dues were settled to respondent No. 1workman but in spite of the same, respondent No. 1-workman had filed A.P.S.E.No. 1 of 2002 before the authority under Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), and respondent No.

3-authority granted terminal benefits amounting to Rs.64,081/- and the petitioner challenged the same by filing A.P.S.A.No. 4 of 2004 and the second appellate authority

dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 26-10-2004 without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent No. 3 granted compensation to respondent No. 1-workman in exercise of its power under Sections 47 (3) and (4) of the Act and the said Sections 47 (3) and (4) were held to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by judgment dated 22-11-2001 in W.P.No. 18692 of 2001 and in spite of the said judgment, the authorities have directed to pay compensation to respondent No. 1-workman and contended that the orders passed by the authorities under the Act are liable to be set aside and contended that appropriate orders be passed allowing the writ petition.

4.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1-workman contended that this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant interim suspension of the orders passed by the authorities under the Act subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount of compensation as adjudicated by the authorities under the Act and in pursuance of the said interlocutory orders, 50% of the amount has already been deposited and paid to respondent No. 1workman. The only dispute is about balance 50% to be paid to respondent No. 1-workman. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1-workman contended that no grave irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in the orders passed by the authorities under the Act.

5.

The authorities under the Act have rightly passed the orders in favour of respondent No. 1-workman and the authorities have specifically observed that respondent No. 1-workman retired from service on 31-10-2001 whereas the judgment of this Court is dated

22-11-2001 i.e. after retirement of respondent No. 1-workman. Had the petitioner paid the amount of compensation as on the date of retirement, the judgment of this Court would not have come in the way of compensation liable to be paid to respondent No. 1workman. 6.

This Court having considered the rival submissions made by both learned counsel is of the considered view that the authorities under the Act have rightly passed orders in favour of respondent No. 1-workman. The dispute is only about payment of Rs.28,000/- liable to be paid to respondent No. 1-workman. Ends of justice would be met if the said amount is directed to be paid to respondent No. 1-workman. No grave illegality or irregularity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J.

Date: 18-12-2018.

JSK