IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2089 of 2009 Between: M/s/Nathmal Sitaram Panwar, Kirana, Dry Fruits, Gopala Packings & DPR, D.No.15-7-414, Near Post Office, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, reptd.,. by its Partner-Mr.Sitaram Panwar, s/o.Nathmal Panwar, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, T.Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Bankatlal Mandhani. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Labour for R.1. None for R.2. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 10-12-2008 in IA No.10 of 2006 in S.E.No.5 of 2008 passed by respondent No.1. After hearing Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perusing the record, I find no substance in this Writ Petition. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 condoned the delay of 658 days in filing the appeal under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”). The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because there is no employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.1 has not given proper reasons to condone the huge delay in filing the appeal. As regards the first contention, the stage for considering the petitioner’s objection regarding employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2 has not been set. As noted hereinabove, it is only at the delay condonation stage that the petitioner raised this objection. In my considered view, the said objection is not germane for enquiry at that stage. It is only after the delay is condoned and appeal is numbered that the petitioner is entitled to raise this contention and respondent No.1 shall consider the same while dealing with the appeal. With regard to the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that proper reasons were not given, I do not find any merit in this contention either, because respondent No.1 has taken note of the fact that respondent No.2 appears to be consistently pursuing the case and he did not see any willful intention on his part for causing delay in filing the appeal. Respondent No.1 also took note of the fact that the Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for providing safeguards to the employees and that the authority shall be liberal in considering the applications for condonation of delay. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as an appellate authority in considering the validity of the orders passed by the statutory authorities. Respondent No.1 has exercised the discretion vested in him and unless exercise of such discretion is perverse and arbitrary, this Court would not interfere with the orders passed by the authorities. As the order of respondent No.1 does not suffer from either of the two defects referred to above, the same is not liable to be interfered with. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt.15-4-2009 MNR