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 : 17089 of 2008 Between: R.Mohan late Sri N.S.R Ramachandra Iyer H.No.10,Viman Nagar Behind Anand Theatre Secunderabad-500003 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd Rep.by its Managing Director Kukatpally PB No.1 Sanathanagar,Hyderabad 2 The Authority Under Sec 48 (3) of the AP Shops & Establishment Act cum Dy.Commissioner Of Labour (Twin Cities) Hyderabad Anjaiah Bhavan Hyderabad 3 The Authority Under Sec.48 (1) of the A.P Shops & Eastablishment Act cum Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1 Anjaiah Bhavan,Hyderabad .....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 an order direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pay 50% back wages by setting aside order passed by the Second Appellate Authority under Sec.48 (3) of the A.P Shops& Establishment act is SA No.4 of 2005 dt.13th November 2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.RAVINDRANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 17089 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Typist-cum-Clerk with the first respondent. He was removed from service, vide order, dated 13-06-2003. Thereupon he approached the authority concerned under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, by filing S.E.No.8 of 2003. The third respondent herein passed an order, dated 30-11-2004, setting aside the order of removal of the petitioner from service and directing his reinstatement with 50% back wages. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the denial of the balance of amount of back wages, and accordingly, filed S.A.No.4 of 2005 before the second respondent. The appeal was rejected on 13-11-2007. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Labour. The petitioner adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of his case in S.E.No. 8 of 2003. The oral evidence comprised of his own deposition as AW.1 and documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the first respondent, OPW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B.13 were filed. The 3rd respondent was satisfied that there was no justification for the first respondent in removing the petitioner from the service. It accordingly directed his reinstatement. When it came to the question of awarding the back wages, it felt that the petitioner failed to place necessary facts to prove that he was not gainfully employed, ever since he was removed from service by the first respondent. Having made such observation, the 3rd respondent awarded 50% of the back wages. The same was affirmed by the second respondent. It may be true that it was difficult for the petitioner to prove a negative fact, namely that he was not gainfully employed, after he was removed from service. All the same, he ought to have made an endeavour to adduce evidence, oral or documentary, which would throw light upon the question. Deposition by a neighbour, or a person, acquainted with the petitioner, in his day to day affairs, would have certainly been, of some use. When he did not evince interest to address the question of his being out of employment, respondents 2 and 3 were left with no alternative. This court is not able to find any factual or legal infirmity in the orders under challenge. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is represented that the first respondent filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the very jurisdiction of respondents 2 and 3 to entertain the claim of the petitioner. It is observed that the adjudication in this writ petition is confined only to the question of grant of back wages to the petitioner and the question raised by the first respondent will be decided on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 11-08-2008 KLP