THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25554 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the charge sheet dated 08.11.2007. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The necessity for this Court to deal with various contentions urged by the parties is obviated on account of the fact that in pursuance of the charge sheet, departmental enquiry was held. It is stated that final orders are awaited. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 20.12.2007, granted stay of suspension order. Therefore, the writ petition is closed directing that the petitioner shall await the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and work out his remedies, depending on the result thereof. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 24th June, 2010 GHN Both these writ petitions arise under similar circumstances and are between the same parties. Hence, they are being disposed of through common order. The first respondent in both the matters was employed initially as attender and thereafter he was promoted as salesman in …., petitioner herein. His wages were initially at Rs.1,995/- per month. On the ground that the said salary is in excess of limits imposed under Section 116(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, wages were reduced to Rs.2,595/- per month. The reduced salaries were paid for the period between 01.04.2005 and 31.05.2005. He filed case in MW No.306.. under Minimum Wages Act, .. before the Authority under Section 20 of the said Act claiming difference of wages. Challenging the retrenchment beyond 31.08.2005, the first respondent filed No.10 of 2006 under Section 48 of the Shops and Establishments Act (for short ‘the Act’). Through order dated 28.03.2005, the Commissioner directed reinstatement of the first respondent. W.P.No.15069 of 2008 is filed against the order dated ..passed by the Commissioner under the Act and W.P.No.22146 of 2008 is filed against the order in M.W. No.306 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. It is not in dispute that the first respondent was employed with the petitioner initially as attender and thereafter as salesman. There may have been justification for the petitioner in reducing salary on account of restriction imposed under Section 116(c) of the Act. However, wages Act, which is enacted by the Parliament would have precedence over the State enactment. There is no dispute as to the period for which the first respondent worked and the wages paid to him. The authority under the Wages Act has restriction. This Court is of the view that a decent balance needs to be struck between the requirement under the Wages Act on the one hand and restriction imposed under Shops Act on the other hand. While admitting W.P.No.22146 of 2008, this Court directed that half of the amount covered by the order impugned therein shall be deposited. The condition has since been complied with, the first respondent has withdrawn the amount. The order of retrenchment of first respondent is concerned, the Commissioner of labour has undertaken a detailed discussion and held that there are no basis for retrenchment and directed reinstatement. By virtue of interim orders passed in W.P.No.15069 of 2008, the first respondent came to reinstatement. Hence, W.P.No.15069 of 2008 is dismissed upholding the order passed by the Commissioner of Labour. W.P.No.22146 of 208 is disposed of directing that the amount paid by the petitioner in compliance with the interim order shall constitute compliance with the order impugned therein. The petitioner was employed as a driver in A.P.S.R.T.C. on casual basis on 28.04.1998. He was issued show-cause notice-cum- suspension order dated 14.06.1999. It was pointed out that though his date of birth according to the school record was 05.01.1954, he has produced a certificate depicting his date of birth as 19.03.1954 and that same wa