IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14847 OF 1999 Between: Shank Investments Pvt.Ltd., rep. by its Director, Shankarlal Agarwal, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III-cum-Authority under Sec.48 of Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, T.Anjaiah, Hyderabad and another ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14847 OF 1999 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 1st respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Labour- III-cum-Authority under Section 48 of Shops and Establishments Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act’) is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. Despite notice, the 2nd respondent did not choose to appear before this Court. The 2nd respondent herein filed an application before the 1st respondent authority alleging that his services were illegally terminated by the writ petitioner. It was claimed by the 2nd respondent that he was employed in the year 1975 by Sri Venkateswara Khandasari Sugar Mills and that in the year 1980 he was transferred to one Sagar Constructions and thereafter he was again transferred to the petitioner concern in the year 1992. Alleging that his services were orally terminated on 05.12.1996 by the petitioner, he sought reinstatement together with back wages and all consequential benefits. The said application was opposed by the writ petitioner denying the various allegations and contentions made by the 2nd respondent. It was also specifically contended that the 2nd respondent was never employed by the petitioner concern and therefore, the oral termination did not arise. On the basis of Exs.A-1 to A-7 documents marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent by order dated 29.01.1999 directed his reinstatement together with back wages quantified as Rs.80,000/-. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. It is specifically contended before this Court that none of the documents marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent related to the alleged employment with the petitioner and that the findings recorded the 1st respondent-Authority were not based upon any evidence on record. It is also contended that the entire decision making process was erroneous and the 1st respondent had exceeded the jurisdiction conferred under Section 48 of the Act. On a careful consideration of the material available on record, I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The 2nd respondent was never engaged by the petitioner and even the alleged termination was not supported by any evidence. As there was no evidence at all to support the conclusions of the 1st respondent authority, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the whole issue afresh and pass a reasoned order following due process of law. It is also open to both the parties to produce any other additional material to substantiate their respective claims. No costs. ____________ Date: 09.04.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd