IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1383 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/09/2008 in WP NO : 7145 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Y.Satyanarayana of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society V.Venkatayapalem, Khammam Uraban Mandal Khammam District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Co-operative officer,Khammam, Khammam District 2 The District Collector, Khammam,Khammam District 3 K.Ramdas S/o.narayana Guvvalagudem village Neelakonda Palli Mandal, Khammam District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.V.ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an interim order dated 17-9-2008 passed in W.V.M.P.No. 2147 of 2007 in W.P.M.P.No. 10458 of 2007 in W.P.No. 8145 of 2007, this appeal has been filed. Respondent No.3 had been dismissed from service by PACS, Vepakuntla of Khammam District. The order of termination was set aside on 3-2-2003 by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour in an appeal filed under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. Later on, PACS, Vepakuntla had merged into the appellant society and, therefore, the amount payable to respondent No.3 will have to be paid by the present appellant. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 3-2-2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Khammam had not been challenged by the PACS, Vepakuntla or even by the present appellant under the provisions of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 whereunder an appeal could have been filed. Instead of approaching the appropriate statutory authority, a writ petition has been filed by the present appellant wherein, by an interim order it has been directed that 50% of the amount payable to respondent No.3 should be deposited and the same has been permitted to be withdrawn without furnishing any security by respondent No.3. The said order has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal. Upon hearing the learned Advocates, we do not find any substance in this appeal because the order whereby the amount was made payable has not been challenged before the statutory authority. Till today the order dated 3-2-2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Khammam has not been challenged before the appropriate authority. In the circumstances, we do not find any fault with the order passed by the learned single Judge. There is no substance in the appeal and the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th December, 2008. GRR