HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.481 OF 2007 DATE:25.11.2009 Between: The President, Kattubolu Milk Producers Co-operative Society, Rambilli, Visakhapatnam …….Petitioner And: A.P State, rep. By the Authority u/s. 48 of A.P. Shops and Establishment Act 1988 and 2 others ……Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.481 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings in S.T.C.No.211 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Yelamanchili which case relates to violation of the direction given under Section 48(5) of the Shops and Establishment Act. The 2nd respondent was working in the petitioner organization viz., Kattubolu Milk Product Cooperative Society, Rambilli Mandal of Visakhapatnam District. When his services were terminated, the 2nd respondent approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II, Visakhapatnam for reinstatement into service. By the order dated 28.02.2001 in F.A.No.2 of 2000, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour ordered reinstatement of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam. The appellate authority directed the petitioner to reinstate the 2nd respondent into service and to pay 50% of back wages as per order dated 29.04.2002 in A.P.S.E.A.No.3 of 2001. 50% of back wages for 46 months comes to Rs.14,122/-. There is no dispute about the said amount. As the petitioner failed to pay the said amount to the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent filed S.T.C.No.211 of 2004 in the lower court for effecting recovery of the said amount from the petitioner in view of Section 54 of the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act. At the time of admission of this petition, it is stated that this Court ordered the petitioner to deposit 50% out of the amount of Rs.14,122/- The petitioner’s counsel states that he has no information whether the petitioner has deposited the said amount in the lower court or not. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the amount due has to be recovered from the employer either by following procedure prescribed by Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of fine amount or alternatively by following the procedure prescribed under the Revenue Recovery Act by the District Collector. The 1st respondent has chosen the first mode of recovery by approaching the Magistrate Court for recovery of the amount from the petitioner. The case was not filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner showing the petitioner as accused, but the petitioner was shown as Judgment Debtor in the case before the lower court. I am of the opinion that the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent by filing application under Section 54 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act for violation of the directions under Section 48(5) of the same Act is proper and legal. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J Date:25.11.2009 Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.481 OF 2007 DATE:25.11.2009 Gk.