IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18673 of 1998 Between: The Orugallu District Co-Op.Marketing Society Ltd., Rep by Business Manager Sri V.Vijaya Kumar. S/o. Yadagiri, Warangal, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Authority, U/s 48 of AP Shops & Establishments Act & Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Warangal II. 2 D.Linga Murthy, S/o Veeraiah, Orugallu Dist. Co-Op.Marketing Society, Warangal, R/o Desaipet, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or direction or writ especially writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dt.16-10-97 passed in MP.I.A.No.1/97 file No.C/270/97 on the file of respondent no.1 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and uncontitutional and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{PRASAD} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.18673 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Orugallu District Co-operative Marketing Society, questioning the order dated 16-10-1997, of the appellate authority under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner- Society has raised the question of jurisdiction of the respondent No.1, inasmuch as the petitioner being a Co-operative Society, governed by the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (for short ‘the Act’), the provisions of A.P. Shops and Establishment Act have no application. The said contention is well supported by Section 129 of the Act. 3. The above legal position is not seriously contested and Section 129 of the Act is categorical in this regard. The impugned order is, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction and accordingly set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 prays that in view of a long lapse of time and that the employee was already superannuated, if any amounts are due and payable to the employee, by the petitioner- society, it may be directed to consider the same and release, irrespective of the result of the writ petition. 5. Keeping in view of the fact that R-2 was past employee of the petitioner-society and having superannuated, it is open to the petitioner- society to consider and pay to R-2, any amounts payable, irrespective of the result of this writ petition. 6. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. ________________ 14-08-2008 kvr