✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 24 Sep 2004

M/s Gemini Picture Palace, S.V.N.Road, Warangal v. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-2nd Appellate Authority

Writ Petition No. 17241 of 2004G YETHIRAJULU3 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
24 Sep 2004
Bench
G YETHIRAJULU

Judgment

rep. by its Managing Partner Sri B.Sadanandam, S/o.Viswanatham, aged 42 years, R/o.Warangal, Warangal District. AND

1.

The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-2nd Appellate Authority under Section 48 (3) A.P.Shops and Establishments Act,1988, Warangal, Warangal District.

2.

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Authority under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act 1988, Warangal, Warangal District.

3.

G.Venkataiah, Gate Keeper, House No.16-4-174, Near Petrol Bunk, Port Road, Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to S.E. Case No.32 of 1995 (File No.C/3436/1995 dated 16.7.2004 on the file of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Authority under Section 48 of A.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1998 and quash the same and declare that the orders of the 2nd appellate Authority under Section 48 (3) of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 returning the appeal filed by the petitioner vide its order passed in N.Dis No.B/3417/2004 dated 21.9.2004 is illegal, arbitrary and further declare that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal passed in S.E. Case No.32/95 dated 16.7.2004 is without jurisdiction, power or authority. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: None appeared. The Court at the stage of admission made the following : THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION No.17241 OF 2004 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner is that when he preferred the second appeal to the first respondent against the order of the second respondent, it was returned on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply the provisions of Section 48(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988.

2. The petitioner is now expressing his readiness to deposit the entire amount payable as per the order of the second respondent, after giving deduction to the amount of Rs.19,060-50ps. already deposited by him. The petitioner is therefore, directed to present his second appeal to the first respondent by paying the balance amount as per the order of the second respondent and on presentation of the second appeal along with the amount due as per the order of the second respondent, the first respondent shall take it on file, if it is otherwise in order. The amount paid by the petitioner shall be disbursed to the third respondent after the disposal of the second appeal.

3. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________ Dr.G.YETHIRAJULU, J Date:24th September, 2004. Cs NOTE: Issue C.C. in three days. B/O Cs. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, 2nd Appellate Authority under Section 48(3) of A.P.Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, Warangal, Warangal District.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Authority under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, Warangal, Warangal District.

3. Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Labour, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (O.U.T.)

4.

Two C.D. copies.

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

A.P.Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 — s. 48(3); A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 — ss. 48, 48(3); Constitution of India — art. 226; A.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1998 — s. 48; Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 — s. 48(3).

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 24 Sep 2004. The bench was G YETHIRAJULU.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 17241 of 2004). ← Search more judgments