IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16235 of 2007 Between: K. Sree Ranga Rao, S/o. Venkata Rao, R/o. Plot No. 182, Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad - 500 059. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, 7th Floor, Parishram Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 029. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad II & Authority, Madam Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad. 3 The Presidding Officer, Labour Court, Chandravihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 1st respondent violating the respective Court Orders by not paying the full back wages and keeping out of job as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further direct the 1st respondent herein to issue posting orders and release full back wages and other attendant beneﬁts to the Petitioner and such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GANDYADAPU RAJESHAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is employed with the ﬁrst respondent. The proceedings against him were initiated with the issuance of a show cause notice, dated 22.03.1984. The same, ultimately, resulted in an order of removal from service and the proceedings before the authority under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as before this Court. Suﬃce it to say, that a Division Bench of this Court, through its judgment, dated 17.09.1996, in W.A.No.1075 of 1996 had upheld the order passed by the authority under the Act, directing reinstatement of the petitioner, but the relief as regards back wages was set aside, directing that it shall be open to the petitioner to make a representation to the ﬁrst respondent as to his not having been gainfully employed. Several developments have taken place ever since then. The petitioner was transferred to Chittoor Branch of the ﬁrst respondent on account of his non-functioning at Hyderabad. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated. The petitioner claims to have made a representation, dated 06.07.2007, claiming several reliefs, such as back wages and issuance of orders of posting. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The issue relating to the dismissal of the petitioner from service, through order, dated 02.06.1984, had become ﬁnal with the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 17.09.1996. The petitioner claims to have made a representation, dated 06.07.2007, as regards the back wages and the orders of posting. Nearly one year has elapsed and there cannot be any justiﬁcation on the part of the ﬁrst respondent in not passing any orders on the representation. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the ﬁrst respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation, dated 06.07.2007, submitted by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.08.2008. kdl