Telangana High Court
WP/6447/1999 of A.Gopal Vs The Authority under Section 48 of A.P.Shopping AND on 26 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6447 of 1999 Between: A.Gopal S/o.A.Ramesh Kothapalli Village, Madanapalli,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.6447 of 1999
Between:
A.Gopal S/o.A.Ramesh
Kothapalli Village, Madanapalli,
Chittoor District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Authority under Section 48 of A.P.Shops & Establishment Actand Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati.
2 The Management of Chittoor District Cooperatiive Marketing SocietyLtd,. Chittoor District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue an order direction or Writ particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring theaction of respondents in not recovering the amounts as ordered inA.P.S.E.No.1/93 in accordance with Section 48 (5) of Act is illegal andarbitrary and consequently direct the respondent no.1 to recover theamounts from respondents No.2 under Section 48(5) of Act and pay thesame to the petitioner and grant such other relief and reliefs as theHon'ble Courts deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: E. KALYANA RAM
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theinaction of respondent No.1 in recovering the amounts as ordered inAPSC No.1/93 in accordance with Section 48(5) of the Andhra PradeshShops and Establishments Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal. Thepetitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 toinitiate steps for recovery of the amounts from respondent No.2.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the parties. I have perused the record.
The petitioner, who was an employee of respondent No.2, filedan application before respondent No.1 under Section 48 of the Actquestioning his unlawful termination from service by proceedings dated12.12.1992 by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 passed order on31.03.1994 whereby the order of termination was set aside andrespondent No.2 was directed to reinstate the petitioner withbackwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
The petitioner averred that he made an application beforerespondent No.1 under Section 48(5) of the Act for recovery of thebackwages from 05.02.1993 to 19.06.1995 from respondent No.2. Thegrievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has not beenenforcing the provisions of Section 48(5) of the Act.
Under Section 48(5) of the Act, any amount directed to be paidunder Section 48 of the Act may be recovered if the authority is not aMagistrate, by any Magistrate to whom the authority makes applicationin this behalf as if it was a fine imposed by such Magistrate. Under thisprovision, not only power is conferred on the authority to recover themoney but also an obligation is cast on him for such recovery. Therefore, when the order passed by respondent No.1 is not given effectto by the party against whom such an order is passed, it is the boundenduty of respondent No.1 to initiate steps for recovery of the money underSection 48(5) of the Act.
As no counter-affidavit is filed controverting the avermentscontained in the affidavit, it is reasonable to presume that respondentNo.1 has not taken any steps to recover the amount awarded by it in itsorder dated 31.03.1994.
In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed. RespondentNo.1 is directed to initiate proceedings and take appropriate steps forrecovery under Section 48(5) of the Act, if not already done, within aperiod of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Date: 26.12.2008va
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J