IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11424 of 2007 Between: M/s.Narang Plastics Private Limited,Bangalore, Plot No.303, 5th Main,4th Phase, peenya Industrial area Bangalore-560058, rep.by its Manager(Legal) S.Narsing Rao, S/o.Sri Rangaiah, aged 39 years R/o.H.No.12-11-510, Boudhanagar, Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Yelamanchi Ravi Shankar S/o.Bhaskar Rao H.No.57-6-13, old Post office, Road, Padamata, Vijayawada-6 2 The Authority under section 48 of AP Shops And Establishment act,1988 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MS. MARREDDY BHAGYAMMA FOR MR.D.GOVERDHANA CHARY Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR. C.RAGHU The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 11.05.2007 passed by respondent No.2 in APS&E MP.No.6 of 2006 in APSE Case No.1 of 2006. Respondent No.1 is the erstwhile employee of the petitioner herein. He had been working with the petitioner from 01.05.1993 and was paid salaries up to May, 2004. By order, dated 04.09.2004, respondent No.1 was suspended and was later dismissed under order, dated 28.03.2005 with retrospective effect from 04.09.2004, the date on which he was placed under suspension. Respondent No.1 questioned the said order by filing a statutory appeal under Section 48 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) before respondent No.2. The petitioner contested the application filed by respondent No.1 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, by filing a counter-affidavit. However, by order, dated 29.04.2006 respondent No.2 allowed the application of respondent No.1 for condonation of delay. The petitioner failed to participate before respondent No.2 in the appeal. Evidence on the side of respondent No.1 was recorded ex parte and by a reasoned order, the appeal of respondent No.1 was allowed by respondent No.2 vide its order, dated 29.06.2006. Subsequently, the petitioner filed APS & EMP.No.6 of 2006 to set aside the e x parte decree. The said application was dismissed by respondent No.2 vide its order, dated 11.05.2007 on the ground that the petitioner failed to file the said application within 30 days from the date of the ex parte order. At the hearing, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, there is no specific provision for condonation of delay. It is also admitted that the application for setting aside the ex parte order has been filed beyond 30 days. The plea of the petitioner in the writ petition is that after disposal of the application filed by respondent No.1 for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, no notice was given in the main case by respondent No.2 and, therefore, it could not file the application in time for setting aside the ex parte order. In my considered view, such a plea cannot be sustained, because the application for condonation of delay is a part of appeal proceedings and it is incumbent upon the petitioner to keep track of the posting of the appeal. When once the petitioner has participated in the appeal proceedings albeit at the stage of condone delay petition, it is incumbent upon it to know the dates of posting of the case. Hence, this plea cannot be sustained. However, it is admitted that there was a few days delay in the petitioner approaching respondent No.2 for setting aside the ex parte order. For technical reason that there is no specific provision for condoning the delay for entertaining the application beyond the limitation period of 30 days, respondent No.2 dismissed the application. In my considered view, in the interests of justice, the petitioner may be afforded an opportunity to contest the appeal on merits. However, having regard to the conduct of the petitioner in not being diligent in prosecuting the case and the fact that respondent No.1 is a workman, who is out of employment for the last five years, it would be appropriate that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the credit of the appeal pending before respondent No.2, within a period of six weeks from today, so that respondent No.1 will be able to sustain himself and his family till the disposal of appeal on merits by respondent No.2. On such deposit, respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw the same without any condition. The deposit of money by the petitioner and its withdrawal by respondent No.1 shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.2 shall dispose of the appeal on merits subject to the petitioner depositing the above- mentioned sum within the stipulated time. If the petitioner fails to make such a deposit, the writ petition stands dismissed and the order impugned in this writ petition gets revived. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th MARCH, 2009. kvni