THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25071 of 1999 ORDER: The State promoted establishment of Super Markets at various places. For this purpose, respective Co-operative Societies were registered, and they, in turn, establish the super bazars. As in the case of commercial venture, undertaken by the Government, all the super bazars went into liquidation. One such entity was the Mahila Super Bazar at Hanamkonda. Ten employees were engaged in the Super Bazar, including respondents 3 to 10 herein. Since the Super Bazar sustained losses, it terminated the services of all its employees. Respondents 3 to 10 approached the authority under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act (for short ‘the Act’) by filing S.E.No.1 of 1996. Through an order, dated 16.02.1998, the Authority under the Act upheld the order of retrenchment, but directed that half of the arrears of salary shall be paid from the date of filing of the appeal to the date of order. The said order became final. In the meanwhile, the Society, which established the Super Bazar, went into liquidation. The Authority under the Act referred the matter to the Court of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal, for execution of the order passed in S.E.No.1 of 1996. The trial Court took up the matter as Crl.M.P.No.1306 of 1998. An order was passed on 01.12.1999, directing attachment of the properties of different Offices of the Cooperative Department, including vehicles and furniture. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and learned counsel for respondents 3 to 10. It may be true that the order in S.E.No.1 of 1996 has become final and it deserves to be executed, in the process known according to law. The only question is, as to the agencies against whom the order can be executed. Admittedly, the Society, which is the employer of respondents 3 to 10, has gone into liquidation. At the most, the execution can be against the Authority, who is in-charge of the execution, or appointed as liquidator that too, vis-à-vis the properties of the liquidated society. For the reasons best known to them, respondents 3 to 10 have impleaded the petitioner herein i.e. Divisional Cooperative Officer, and Cooperative Sub-Registrar/Liquidator and In-charge Business Manager. There must not be any difficulty in proceeding against the properties of the liquidated society. The direction issued by the trial Court for attachment of vehicles and furniture of the Cooperative Department, cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the execution of the order in S.E.No.1 of 1996 shall be only against the properties of the Society under liquidation and not against the Officials of the Cooperative Department. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.24.06.2010. GJ