THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.Nos.22500 and 22540 of 2010 COMMON ORDER The petitioner instituted S.E.Nos.4 of 2008 and 3 of 2009 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad, under Section 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, against his previous employers claiming arrears of salary and allowances. In both the matters, ex parte orders were passed. In S.E.No.4 of 2008, the petitioner sought for review of the order. The respondents in the cases are said to have filed applications for recall of the ex parte orders. The petitioner approached the Additional Commissioner of Labour-fourth respondent in both the writ petitions, with a prayer to transfer the cases to different Assistant Commissioner of Labour within his jurisdiction by pleading certain facts. The fourth respondent expressed inability to accede the request of the petitioner and addressed letters, dated 27.08.2010. These two writ petitions are filed challenging the said letters. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Labour. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, various events that have been taken place in the proceedings instituted by the petitioner are mentioned. A wild allegation to the effect that the learned Presiding Officer has contacted the employer of the petitioner on cell phone even while hearing the case, is made. If that is true, not only the case of the petitioner deserves to be transferred but also action needs to be initiated. The record, however, discloses that the petitioner did not state this fact in writing, before the fourth respondent. Even now, he can state that fact and substantiate the same before the fourth respondent. In case it is proved, the fourth respondent shall have to transfer the proceedings to some other authority and initiate action against the person found guilty. Hence, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the fourth respondent i.e., the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, narrating his grievances. In case the Assistant Commissioner of LabouI-I, before whom the cases of the petitioner are pending, is found to have spoken to the employer of the petitioner on phone, it shall entail severe action apart from directing transfer of the proceedings. The fifth respondent shall not take further steps in the matter for a period of two weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:13.09.2010 Note: Issue CC within three days. (Bo) sj