THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3459 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Collection Agent on 13.01.1996 by Gudapalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Gudapalli, Malkipuram Mandal, East Godavari District, respondent No.3 herein. It is stated that through a subsequent resolution passed by the Managing Committee, the petitioner was put on scale. The Divisional Cooperative Officer, respondent No.2 herein, addressed a letter, dated 05.01.2002, to respondent No.3 stating that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to the regulations and that audit objections were raised since no post of Collection Agent was sanctioned for respondent No.3-Society. He has directed the Society to pass appropriate orders terminating the services of the petitioner. The Society, in turn, passed a resolution, dated 31.01.2002, removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the proceedings referred to above. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit. According to him, the Society was not sanctioned any post of Collection Agent and on several occasions, objections were raised in the course of audit for appointment of the petitioner. He further stated that the petitioner filed APSE Case No.5 of 2002 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act (for short ‘the Act’) and even while that case is pending, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. The petitioner has urged several grounds in challenge to the proceedings, dated 05.01.2002, issued by respondent No.2 and consequential resolution, dated 31.01.2002, passed by the Society. Respondent No.2 has stated that the petitioner filed APSE Case No.5 of 2002 under Section 48 of the Act. The petitioner ought to have pursued the remedy under that enactment. It is not known as to whether any relief was granted to the petitioner in that case. He has to pursue further remedies depending on the outcome. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy of filing an application under Section 48 of the Act. It is left open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies under that enactment. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 18.01.2011. kdl