IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 2099 of 1998 Between: Mecca Madina Alladin Wakf Rep. by its Managing Trustee Habeeb Alladin, S.D.Road, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Second Appellate Authority U/s.48 (3) of A.P. Shops & Establishments Act 1988, And Dy. Commissioner of Labour (Twin Cities), T. Anjaiaha Bhavan RTC x Roads, Hyderabad - 20. 2 The Appellate Authority U/s 48 (1) of Shops & Establishments Act 1998, Asst. Commissioner of Labour Circle -IV T. Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC x Roads, Hyderabad - 20. 3 Hamid Ali S/o. Ashraf Ali R/o. 22-7-267/11, Salarjung Complex, Deevandewdi, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in S.A.9/97, dt 22.11.97, on the file of the 1st Respondent viz., the Second Appellate Authority U/s. 48(3) of AP Shops & Establishments Act, And Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Twin Cities), Hyderabad, confirming the orders of the 2nd Respondent viz., Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Circle-IV, Hyderabad, in S.E.41/95, dt 26.3.97 and quash the same as illegal, unjust and consequently dismiss the petition of the 3rd Respondent as not maintainable and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.JAGAN MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : Oral order: It is represented by Sri V.Hariharan, learned counsel representing the petitioner that this Court by the judgment dated 27-11- 2008 in W.P.No. 29166 of 1995 and batch, has quashed the primary and appellate orders of the authority under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and remitted the matter to the primary authority i.e., the 2nd respondent to decide the same afresh. According to Sri Hariharan, the judgment of this Court supra was also rendered in S.A.No. 10 of 1997 pertaining to a lis between the petitioner herein and one Syed Ishaq s/o late S.A. Qader, the person similarly circumstanced as the 3rd respondent herein (who is represented by the legal representatives R4 to R7). In the circumstances stated above and in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 27-11-2008 referred to above, the order of the 2nd respondent in S.E.No.41 of 1995 dated 26-3-1997 as well as the order of the 1st respondent dated 22-11-1997 in S.A.No. 9 of 1997, passed in purported exercise of the power under Section 48(1) and (3) of the Act respectively are quashed. The matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent for a denovo determination in the light of the observations recorded in the judgment of this Court dated 27-11-2008 in W.P.No. 29166 of 1995 and batch. The Registry shall enclose a copy of the judgment dated 27-11-2008 in W.P.No. 29166 of 1995 and batch to this order for information to the 2nd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 17th April, 2009. GRR