IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OFJANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 273 of 2009 Between: Value Labs Plot No.41 HITEC City Phase II, Madharpur, Hyderabad – 500 081 rep.by its Managing Partner D.Arjun Rao, S/o.D.Kamalakar Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. rep.by its Secretary, Labour Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Commissioner of Labour Ranga Reddy Zone, T.Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad-500 020. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dt 28th November, 2008 made by the petitioner for registering value Labs under the A.P Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOMIREDDY KARAMCHAND Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.273 OF 2009 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is Value Labs, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The petitioner is a Software company which came into existence from 1.4.2003, prior to that, it was APPLABS. It is stated that the petitioner did not register itself under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. While so, the 2nd respondent-Joint Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad issued a notice requiring for registration and producing certain documents, failing which the petitioner is liable for penal action. It is further stated that pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 28-11- 2008 but the said representation has not been considered. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the legal liability of the petitioner for its non-registration. But, however, pursuant to the notice dated 19-11-2008, since the petitioner filed a representation dated 28-11-2008, it is just and proper to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 28-11-2008, in accordance with law. No costs. _____________________ Justice V. Eswaraiah 12th January, 2009. dvs THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.273 OF 2009 12th January, 2009.