IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 21401 of 1999 Between: V.V.V.Chowdary, S/o Bapineedu, Hindu, President of Smt.V.Seshamma, P.A.C.S.Ltd., Kurmapuram, Rayavaram (M), East Godavari Dist., R/o Kurmapuram, Rayavaram (M), E.G.Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 & The Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Zone-II, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 & The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 The Assistant Labour Officer, Rayavaram, E.G.Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent in case No.817/97 dt.24-3-98 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to afford an opportunity to put forth his case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21401 OF 1999 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. Though the respondents are served, there is no appearance on their behalf. 2. This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the order, dated 24.03.1998, passed in Case No.817 of 1997 by the 1st respondent - Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948-cum- Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Zone II, Eluru. 3. On 29.05.1997, the 3rd respondent - Assistant Labour Oﬃcer, Rayavaram, East Godavari District, has inspected the oﬃce of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Kurmapuram of Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, of which, the petitioner herein was the President. On the ground that the said Society was not paying minimum wages to its Accountant and Attender, the 3rd respondent has ﬁled a claim before the 2nd respondent- Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, in Form VII, for payment of diﬀerence of wages of Rs.4,012.50 ps. The 1st respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 24.03.1998, directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.4,012.50 ps. towards diﬀerence of wages and also an amount of Rs.20,062.50 ps. towards ﬁve times compensation, totalling to Rs.24,075/-, within thirty days from the date of that order. On the ground that the said order dated 24.03.1998 was passed ex parte, the petitioner herein has ﬁled I.A.No.5 of 1998 before the 2nd respondent, seeking to set aside the same. The said application was initially allowed, but however, on the ground that the petitioner has failed to appear on the subsequent date, the 2nd respondent has passed an order on 07.06.1999, conﬁrming the order, dated 24.03.1998, passed in Case No.817 of 1997, and directed the petitioner to comply with the said order within thirty days. 4. The petitioner has ﬁled the extract of the wage register to show that an amount of Rs.4,012.50 ps., towards diﬀerence of wages, was already paid on 10.12.1997, as pointed out by the 3rd respondent. 5. It is to be noted that, by virtue of allowing I.A.No.5 of 1998 filed by the petitioner at an earlier point of time, the order dated 24.03.1998 passed in Case No.817 of 1997 was already set aside. But, later, when the petitioner did not appear on the subsequent date, the authority could have passed fresh orders, instead of conﬁrming the order dated 24.03.1998, which was already set aside. Therefore, the directions issued in the order dated 07.06.1999, directing the petitioner to comply with the said order dated 24.03.1998, are totally illegal. 6. In that view of the mater, the order dated 07.06.1999 passed in I.A.No.5 of 1998 in Case No.817 of 1997, is set aside, declaring the same as illegal. However, it is made clear that it is open for the authority to proceed with the case in accordance with law, by issuing notice to the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY 25th August, 2008 IBL