IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9461 of 2009 Between: Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Parishad, Sadashivpet, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Authority under Payment of wages Act and the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Commissioenr of Labour, at Hyderabad, Sri T.Anjkaiah Karmika Bhavan, Near RTC Cross Roads, Behind Devi Talkies, Post Chikkadpalli, Hyderabad-500020 2 K.Ramulu, S/o. Narasimhulu,, N.M.R. Watchman through Sri Shaik Dade working President A.P. Work Charged employees State Union, Lata Complex, Opp: New Bus Stand, Post Sanga Reddy, medak District. .RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ELISHA Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP FOR LABOUR Counsel for respondent No.2: MR S.ASHOK ANAND KUMAR The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 30-12-2008 in P.W Case No.2 of 2006 passed by respondent No.1. By the said order, respondent No.1 adjudicated on the claim of respondent No.2 for payment of wages in his favour by the petitioner. At the hearing, Sri G.Elisha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though an alternative remedy by way of a statutory appeal to the District Court is available to the petitioner, in view of the fact that the power and jurisdiction of respondent No.1 to pronounce upon the validity of termination of respondent No.2 is raised, the petitioner need not avail the alternative remedy. In the order impugned in the writ petition, the petitioner in his defence to the claim for payment of wages submitted that since respondent No.2 ceased to be the workman of the petitioner in view of termination of his services, there is no master and servant relationship between them, therefore respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to decide on the said issue. Respondent No.1 decided the said question under issue No.3 and held that while it does not have the authority to go into the validity or otherwise of the retrenchment, it can certainly decide as an incidental issue whether the relationship of master and servant ceased on account of the alleged retrenchment or not. The said finding of respondent No.1 can certainly be questioned by the petitioner before the appellate authority, which is presided over by a well-trained judicial officer. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file this writ petition bypassing the effective alternative remedy of appeal before the District Court. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested for permitting the petitioner to file the appeal by giving reasonable time because limitation for filing such appeal expired. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to file appeal, within a period of four (4) weeks from today, and if such an appeal is filed within the above stipulated time, the appellate authority shall entertain and dispose of the same on merits. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.12350 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 1st May, 2009 vrn