HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.12261 of 2001 Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008 Between: T. Kumaraswamy … Petitioner AND Second Appellate Authority u/s. 48 (3) of A.P. Shops & Establishemnts Act- cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Warangal and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.12261 of 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner calling for the records from the first respondent-Second Appellate Authority under Section 48 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act- cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Warangal, and quash the order, dated 26.05.2001 in Case No.S.A.3/2000. 2) The petitioner worked as an employee under the third respondent. He alleged that he was terminated illegally without following the procedure prescribed under the Shops and Establishments Act. Therefore, the order of employee terminating his services is liable to be set aside and he is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. Against the termination, he preferred a case before the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Warangal, who is an Authority under Section 48 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 covered by S.E. Case No.12 of 1997 and the second respondent passed an order on 02.12.1999 directing the third respondent to reinstate the employee with back wages, continuity of services and all attendant benefits. Being aggrieved by the same, the employer preferred S.A.No.3 of 2000 on the file of the first respondent-Second Appellate Authority under Section 48 (3) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act and the second appeal was allowed by setting aside the order of the second respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the employee filed the present writ petition. 3) In the impugned order, it is observed that there is no documentary proof to show that the employee was employed by the employer. The second respondent has taken into consideration the documents filed by the employee and held that the employee was employed by the employer. However, on perusal of the same, there is nothing to show that he was employed by the employer because Exs.A.1 to A.14 are xerox copies of receipts. The signatures on the receipts are not similar to the signature of the employee. It is improper to come to a conclusion basing on the xerox copies of the receipts that the employee was employed by the employer. Therefore, the second respondent has given findings erroneously basing on those documents and it is not established by the employee that he was employed by the employer. The order of the second respondent, is therefore, set aside. 4) The writ petitioner-employee while challenging the impugned order contended that the second respondent was perfectly justified doing so, since the employer did not adduce any evidence or cross examine the witness examined by the employee. It is further contended that though the employer did not bother to lead evidence or counter the evidence let in by the employee, he filed an application before the second respondent for summoning certain records from the Industrial Training Institute, Jangaon, Warangal District. The said Institute was not a party to the petition, nor did the employer seek leave to implead it as a party. On 21.07.1998 a representation was made by the employer to the first respondent stating that the Authority is showing partiality and accordingly, the first respondent transferred the case to the Authority presided by another officer. Even after transfer of the case, the employer did not bother to attend the proceedings and to lead his evidence for more than one year. Even though the matter was called on a subsequent date, the employer was absent and he was continuously absent for further adjournments also, in spite of many adjournments being given and the second respondent-Authority passed the final order on 02.12.1999 allowing the petition and directing the employer to reinstate the petitioner with back wages. 5) The first respondent allowed the appeal without there being any evidence on behalf of the employer. He did not question as to why the employer did not adduce any evidence to prove that the employee was not employed by the employer at any time. In the impugned order, the first respondent did not make any observation in respect of certain documents. Therefore, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-employee requested to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 26.05.2001. Before the second respondent also, there is no sufficient evidence adduced by both parties. By taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for remand for fresh enquiry and to pass appropriate orders. 6) In the result, the Writ petition is allowed and the orders of the first and second respondents are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the second respondent, who is the Authority under Section 48 of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. The second respondent shall give notice to both parties and allow them to adduce evidence, if any, either oral or documentary and after considering the said evidence shall pass appropriate orders according to law. Since this is an old matter, the second respondent is directed to complete the enquiry, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 05.02.2008 Isn