IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17720 of 2005 Between: P. Prakash Archibold, S/o Prakasham R/o Rampa Errampalem, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Labour Appellate Authority Under Shops and Establishments Act, West Godavari District at Eluru 2 The Asst. Commissioner of Labour-cum-Authority under Shop & Establishments Act, Rajahmundry 3 M/s. Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd., Visakhaptnam rep by Vice-Chariman and Managing Director .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by decalring the order dated 13-04-2005 in APSA No.3/2005 of the 1st respondnet in so far as refusing to award back wages to the petitioenr as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural Justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides against to the provisions of A.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1998 and set a side the same and to pass such otehr order or orders as it may deem fit and proper int he circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.AJAYAKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The learned counsel on either side fairly conceded that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.8570 of 1989 dated 18.9.2001 holding that Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, though outwardly appears to be a Society under the Societies Act, is an instrumentality of the State and Agency within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Further it is not a ‘shop’ within the meaning of Section 2(21) of Shops and Establishments Act, therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, following the judgment rendered in W.P.No.8570 of 1989 dated 18.9.2001, the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 10.2.1999 as confirmed by the first respondent vide order dated 13.4.2005 is set aside. However, this will not preclude the petitioners from approaching Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court and working out their remedies as available under law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 24.3.2008 DA