IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18566 of 1996 Between: Manapuram Nagabhushanarao S/o late Satyanarayana The Visakhapatnam Cooperative Central Stores Ltd., Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst. Commissioner of Labour Circle-I, Vijayanagar Palace lay out, Visakhapatnam-17 2 The Managing Director The Visakhapatnam Central Stres Ltd., (Super Bazar), Visakhapatnam-1 ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY FOR MR A.SRINIVASA SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: ---- The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not implementing order dated 31-12-1992 passed by respondent No.1 in FAMP No.1 of 1992 as illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to reinstate him with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. I have heard Sri Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri A.Srinivasa Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner, who claimed to have worked as Helper in Super Bazaar, Visakhaptanam, from 01-01-1973 to 09-06-1980, was removed by the employer (respondent No.2). He approached respondent No.1 with a delay of 11 years and 6 months by filing an appeal under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”). The said appeal was allowed on the ground that no contra evidence was produced by respondent No.2 to rebut the petitioner’s claim of illegal termination. The petitioner filed this writ petition for implementation of the said order. In my considered view, this writ petition is misconceived, because it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is enough mechanism under the provisions of the Act for execution of the orders passed by the competent authorities under the Act. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has virtually converted this writ petition into an execution petition, which cannot be permitted. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek execution of the order in respect of which implementation is sought for in this writ petition. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 25th November,2008 vrn