THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.No.23355 and 23356 of 2000 COMMON ORDER These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioner-Hindustan Lever Limited, Chennai, questioning the docket orders, dated 24.04.2000 and 11.11.2000 passed in A.P.S.E.Case No.4 of 2000 by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada, the first respondent herein. 2. The brief facts are that the second respondent, who was an employee of the petitioner company, submitted a resignation and the same was accepted by it. Thereafter, the petitioner company settled his terminal benefits. Stating that the said resignation was not voluntary and the same was obtained under duress, the second respondent filed an appeal under Section 48(b) of Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act (for short ‘the Act’) before the Authority Under Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, Kakinada (for short ‘the Authority’), seeking his reinstatement with backwages etc., and the same was numbered as APSE Case No.11 of 1995. As the said appeal was preferred beyond the period of 60 days, the second respondent filed an application for condonation of delay of 288 days in filing the said appeal. The petitioner was served with notice and accordingly, it entered appearance and contested the matter. After several adjournments, the counsel appearing for the second respondent requested the said Authority for return of the appeal stating that the Authority at Kakinada has no jurisdiction. In the light of the said submission, the Authority passed an order, dated 24.10.1996, returning the appeal to the second respondent enabling him to present before the appropriate Court, which is having jurisdiction. 3. Be that as it may, after three years of said return, the second respondent, stating that the Authority at Kakinada alone is having jurisdiction, resubmitted the appeal along with an application seeking to condone the delay. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 21.02.2000, it appears that the petitioner herein was absent and there was no representation on its behalf and as such, the said Authority set the petitioner ex parte and posted the condone delay application to 14.03.2000, on which date, the delay was condoned and the appeal was renumbered as A.P.S.E.Case No.4 of 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to set aside the order, dated 21.02.2000. However, the Authority, without assigning any reasons, dismissed the said application by its order, dated 24.04.2000. Subsequently, it appears, the matter was adjourned on number of occasions and on 14.08.2000, as the applicant, the second respondent herein, was called absent, the Authority dismissed the appeal for default. Thereafter, the second respondent filed an application seeking to set aside the said ex parte order and the Authority allowed the same vide order, dated 11.11.2000, setting aside the ex parte order, dated 14.08.2000. The petitioner now questioned the orders, dated 24.04.2000 and 11.11.2000, by filing these writ petitions. 4. Heard Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.2 and Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 5. Having perused the material on record and the submissions made by both the counsel, it appears that the petitioner was absent on 21.02.2000 and it was set ex parte. The petition filed by it for setting aside the said order was dismissed by the Authority without assigning any reasons. Thereafter, the second respondent was also called absent and the Authority dismissed the appeal for default on 14.08.2000 on the ground of his continuous absence. When the second respondent filed an application seeking to set aside the said dismissal order, the Authority allowed the same. It appears that when the second respondent filed an application seeking to set aside the dismissal order, the minimum requirement of the Authority is to put the petitioner on notice and even if the Authority is convinced that the said application has to be dismissed summarily, it has to assign the reasons after hearing both the counsel. From this, it is clear that the order, dated 14.08.2000, does not disclose any reasons for dismissal of the appeal. Similarly, the order, dated 11.11.2000 is also a non-speaking order. 6. Further, Section 55 of the Act relates to the power of the Authority. As per the said Act, every Authority appointed under Section 50 shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of taking evidence and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the production of documents, and every such authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purpose of Section 195 and of Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As per the above said Act, the Authority has all the powers of a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In those circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the Authority, i.e., the first respondent, had not followed the procedure as contemplated under the Act at any point of time. 7. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed, and the orders impugned are set aside. The Authority below is hereby directed to take up the applications filed by the petitioner as well as the second respondent after serving notice on them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the parties. No order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:02.12.2010 sj