IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETTION No.8861 OF 2001 Between: N. Raghavendra Rao ..... Petitioner And 1. The Authority under Section 50 of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act and Labour Officer, Vijayawada & 2 others …Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETTION No.8861 OF 2001 ORDER: The order of the Authority under Section 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act-cum-Labour Officer-II, Vijayawada, dated 22.01.2001, in A.P.S.E. Case No.5 of 1998, directing the writ petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,34,817.60 Ps. towards the service compensation, notice pay, leave salary, etc., to the second respondent/workers as per the enclosed statement thereto within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The writ petitioner contends that the authority was informed through the counter affidavit filed before it on the application filed by the second respondent/workers that he never took any premises of the third respondent/Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short, “APSRTC”) on lease and never engaged the second respondent/workers. However, the authority, without verification of the records in question, passed the impugned order without any application of mind. The deed of license concerning the premises/Canteen at new APSRTC Bus Station, Bhaskararaopet, Vijayawada, was executed between the third respondent corporation and one Sri N.R. Nagappaiah on 25.07.1994 for the period between 16.07.1994 and 15.07.1997. As there was absolutely no relationship of employer and employee between the writ petitioner and the second respondent/workers, the impugned order be nullified. 3. Status quo existing as on that day was directed to be maintained until further orders by the interim order of this Court, dated 31.08.2001, and the said order continued to be in force throughout. 4. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri V. Raghu, learned counsel for the second respondent/workers are heard. 5. The contents of the affidavit in support of the writ petition were not controverted by any of the respondents and it was stated on oath by the writ petitioner that he was not the licensee of the third respondent corporation concerning the Canteen in question during the relevant period. Therefore, the question of the writ petitioner engaging the second respondent/workers does not arise. The authority, in passing the impugned order, appeared to have been guided by the claim of the second respondent/workers about the writ petitioner being the employer without verification of the deed of license. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 6. However, the authority shall have to take action in accordance with law concerning the claims of the second respondent/workers against the person liable to answer such claim under law, notwithstanding the quashing of the impugned order herein. 7. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 22.01.2001, in A.P.S.E. Case No.5 of 1998, passed by the Authority under Section 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act-cum-Labour Officer-II, Vijayawada, is quashed. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 2nd December, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETTION No.8861 OF 2001 December 02, 2010. KL