IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17426 of 2008 Between: K.V.V. Satyanarayana, S/o. Ramakrishna, R/o. Merakapalem Razole Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Cooperative officer, E.G. District at Kakinada. 2 The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The B. Savaram PACS B. Savaram, Razole Mandal, E.G. District Rep. by its Secretary. 4 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 declaring the impugned action of the 3rd respondent in not taking action for reinstatement of the petitioner in spite of order made in APSE No. 5/2005, dated 6-12-2007 by the competent Authority under the provisions of A.P. Shops and Establishment Act wherein dismissal order issued against the petitioner was set aside as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits by also directing the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate action against the 3rd respondent for acting contrary to the service regulations issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and provisions A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.EATHAKOTA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Paid Secretary in the third respondent society. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and through an order, dated 15.10.2005, the third respondent dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the fourth respondent under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), which was taken up as A.P.S.E.No.5 of 2005. The fourth respondent allowed the case through order, dated 06.12.2007. It was directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service with full back wages and attendant benefits. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order passed by the fourth respondent is not being implemented by the third respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. The petitioner had availed the remedy under the Act, against the order of dismissal. The fourth respondent, in turn, granted the relief of reinstatement into service, with full back wages, vide order, dated 06.12.2007. If the said order has become final, he has to enforce the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. This Court cannot function as an agency to execute the orders passed by the fourth respondent. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek enforcement of the order, dated 06.12.2007, passed by the fourth respondent, in case it has become final. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.11.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ