THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22804 of 1999 ORDER: The 3rd respondent herein approached the Authority under Section 50 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act-cum-Labour Officer, Karimnagar, stating that he was appointed with the petitioner, on 01.06.1988, as Salesman, and that his services were terminated on 30.11.1996, without notice and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act. A sum of Rs.27,046.72 paise was claimed. After giving ample opportunity to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 31.07.1998, awarding a sum of Rs.31,920/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Appeal No.1 of 1998 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar, the 1st respondent. Through order, dated 31.08.1999, the 1st respondent partly allowed the appeal by reducing the amount to Rs.27,046/-, that was claimed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent, as modified by the 1st respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent failed to prove that he was employed with the petitioner and still the 2nd respondent passed the order awarding a sum of Rs.27,046/-. He submits that the 1st respondent has also not considered the plea of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity before the 2nd respondent. Learned Government Pleader for Labour, on the other hand, submits that mere perusal of the order passed by the 2nd respondent discloses that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent and that the same was not utilized. He contends that respondents 1 and 2 discussed the matter at length with reference to the relevant record and no interference is warranted. With a specific plea that he was employed with the petitioner herein, the 3rd respondent filed a case before the 2nd respondent. It is not as if the ex parte order was passed therein. A perusal of the order passed by the 2nd respondent discloses that the hearing of the matter was fixed on 30.09.1997 and after it was adjourned for about half a dozen times to enable the petitioner to participate. The matter was posted on 27.11.1997 for the evidence of the 3rd respondent. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A. to set aside the ex parte order. Even thereafter, there was hardly any representation, though the matter adjourned on quite large number of occasions. After dismissing the I.A., the 2nd respondent proceeded to record the evidence. After recording the evidence and perusing the record, the 3rd respondent was awarded a sum of Rs.31,920/-. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the 1st respondent reduced that amount to Rs.27,046/-. The petitioner is not able to show as to what steps he has taken before respondents 1 and 2 to demonstrate that the 3rd respondent was not employed with him or that the evidence adduced by the 3rd respondent is not correct. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority and no question of law is involved. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.29.06.2010. GJ