THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26256 of 2011 ORDER: The 1st petitioner is an educational institution and petitioners 2 to 4 are its officers, functioning at various levels. The 1st respondent is said to have been engaged as Counsellor for a period of two years, through order of appointment dated 09-12-2005, and thereafter she was promoted as Senior Programme Coordinator in the year 2009. It is stated that on account of her absence from 01-12-2010 to 20-12-2010, the services of the 1st respondent were terminated through order dated 20-12-2010. The 1st respondent filed an application under A.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) before the 2nd respondent, which is numbered as APSE Case No.1 of 2011, claiming the relief of reinstatement into service, and recovery of backwages. On receipt of notice from the 2nd respondent, the petitioners filed an application with a request to raise an issue as to jurisdiction of the Authority to entertain the case. The application was dismissed by the 2nd respondent through order dated 25-07-2011. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent initiated steps under Section 48 of the Act, against the petitioners, before the 2nd respondent. The petitioners wanted the 2nd respondent to decide a preliminary question. The 2nd respondent took the view that it has jurisdiction to entertain the case. The petitioners are not able to convince this Court, that the 2nd respondent lacks the basic jurisdiction, to entertain the case. Even if their plea, that the 1st respondent does not answer the description of a workman; is correct, it can be raised in the course of hearing, and that can be decided as one of the issues. So is the case with the other contentions, advanced by the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds available to them in law, before the 2nd respondent, and the latter, in turn shall take the same into account, while disposing of the case, instituted by the 1st respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20-09-2011. KO