IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHT DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12688 of 1999 Between: Javvadi Nagabushanam … Petitioner AND The Authority Constituted under Minimum Wages Act-cum-Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Office at Eluru, West Godavari Dist. & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu Counsel for respondents 1&3: AGP for Labour Counsel for respondent No.4: GP for Agriculture This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12688 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to set aside ex-parte order dated 06.04.1998 in MW.No.776 of 1997 and order dated 21.07.1998 by which the earlier ex-parte order was confirmed. The petitioner also sought for invalidation of the consequential order by which the ex-parte order is sought to be executed against him. Heard Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour for respondent No.1. The petitioner was the President of respondent No.4 Society (for short, ‘the Society’). The Society failed to pay minimum wages to its workmen. The Assistant Labour Officer, Tadepalligudem, approached respondent No.1 with an application to order payment of minimum wages by the Society to its workmen. The Society remained ex-parte to the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 and an ex-parte order was passed on 06.04.1998. Thereupon, the Society, through the petitioner, filed an application before respondent No.1 to set aside the ex-parte order. The said application was rejected by respondent No.1 by its order dated 21.07.1998. Following the said two orders, proceedings were initiated to recover the minimum wages by the Assistant Labour Officer, Tadepalligudem. In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned the said execution proceedings apart from the orders passed by respondent No.1. At the hearing, Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that as far as the two orders passed by respondent No.1 are concerned, as he does not represent respondent No.4 Society, the petitioner cannot question their validity. He, however, submitted that even if the orders passed by respondent No.1 directing payment of minimum wages are liable for execution, the petitioner being its former President and his liability being limited, the respondents cannot execute the order by proceedings against the petitioner personally. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in B.S. Dwaraknath, President Malakpet Group Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1]. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the judgment of this Court in B.S. Dwaraknath (supra), it was held that under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 a Society can be registered either with limited or unlimited liability and that where a Society was registered with limited liability, the liability of its members for the debts of the Society, which becomes a body corporate under Section 9, is limited by the number of shares a member was holding and the value of those shares only. On the basis of this judgment, the learned counsel submitted that the respondents cannot execute the order passed by respondent No.1 by proceeding against the personal properties of the petitioner. As the petitioner has not filed any material to show that the Society concerned was registered with limited liability, initially an order was passed dismissing the writ petition. Before it was transcribed and signed, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a request to adjourn the writ petition to enable him to file the byelaws of the Society in support of the petitioner’s plea. Accordingly, the case has been adjourned for today. Today, at the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the byelaws. Byelaw No.3 reads: “Membership: The liability of the members of the Society shall be limited to the share capital subscribed by them”. As the Society of which the petitioner was the President falls within the category of Societies, where the liability of the members is limited only to their share capital, the ratio laid down in B.S.Dwaraknath (supra) square applies to the present case and consequently, the action of the respondents in seeking to recover the liability incurred by the Society from the petitioner, making him personally liable cannot be sustained in law. On the premises above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of declaring the action of the respondents in proceeding against the petitioner’s personal properties for recovery of arrears of the Society as illegal. The other prayers are rejected. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.15505 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.11.2008 ES [1] 1979 An.W.R. (2) 433