IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 6846 of 1999 Between: M/S J.D. Electronics, J.N.Road, Hyderabad representd by its partner D.C.Sethia ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Authority under Shops & Establishmnts Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-III and 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.6846 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 16.10.1997 made in I.A.No.35 of 1997 in S.E.No.43 of 1993 on the file of the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner herein is a shop, established under Shops & Establishment Act, 1988. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent herein was never employed nor engaged by the petitioner at any point of time. However, the 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the 1st respondent alleging that he joined services of the writ petitioner as T.V. Technician in the month of February, 1983 and his services were illegally terminated on 14.05.1993 and, therefore, prayed for the relief of reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service in the petitioner’s shop. Since there was no representation on behalf of the writ petitioner before the 1st respondent, the petitioner was set ex parte by an order dated 24.06.1994. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition to set aside the said ex parte order and the same was dismissed on 23.09.1994. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed an order in S.E.No.43 of 1993 dated 22.01.1996 directing the writ petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.37,500/- to the 2nd respondent herein towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Subsequently, an application being I.A.No.35 of 1997 was filed seeking to set aside the said order dated 22.01.1996 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 16.10.1997. Hence the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings before the 1st respondent and it is only after receipt of the concise order, it came to light that the appeal was disposed of in favour of the 2nd respondent. He further submits that the impugned order of the 1st respondent is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. The 2nd respondent though served did not choose to put in his appearance. It is seen from the record that the 1st respondent did not afford adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing an order dated 22.1.1996 directing payment of compensation to the 2nd respondent. Since the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend his case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders dated 22.01.1996 and 16.10.1997 passed by the 1st respondent are set aside. The 1st respondent is hereby directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders, expeditiously, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. No order as to costs. _________________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 21-08-2009 Gsn.