IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT APPEAL NO.362 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 03.12.2007 in W.P.NO.13973 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ICICI Bank Ltd., rep. by its Regional Manager, Sri Upadyaula Satyanarayana Murthy, O/o. 40-1-52/5 Sai Nag Complex, Benz Circle, Vijayawada. ...APPELLANT AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada. 2 Smt.K.Lakshmi W/o.Kasi, C/o. CITO Office, Sundaryya Bhavan, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.T.S.RAYALU The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT APPEAL NO.362 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the second respondent. At their request, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal. The appellant-management seeks to assail the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13973 of 2007 dated 03.12.2007 by setting aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A/7450/2006 dated 06.12.2006 passed by the first respondent and allowing the relief sought by the second respondent, who claim to be an employee. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of the appeal, are that the second respondent claiming to be an employee filed an application that her termination is illegal and sought for other reliefs, which were contested by the appellant by filing counter. However, on the date of hearing, the appellant was not present and ultimately, the order was passed on 06.12.2006. Challenging the same, the appellant filed the Writ Petition, firstly on the ground that the appellant has no opportunity and secondly, the first respondent has no jurisdiction nor there exists any employee or employer relationship. Therefore, the question of entertaining the application nor granting any relief is sustainable. Learned Single Judge, having considered the submissions, allowed the Writ Petition. Since the appellant has no opportunity of hearing, the matter was remitted to the first respondent for disposal on merits, after giving notice and opportunity to the second respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal mainly contending that the question of opportunity, which has been urged by it and especially in regard to the jurisdiction and existence of relationship of employee and employer, the learned Single Judge ought to have gone into the same. More so, the second respondent has not produced any material to show that she is strictly an employee of the appellant. Therefore, the question of employee and employer relationship does not arise. Having regard to the fact that the appellant is having branches all over the country, necessarily as contemplated under Section 2 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it is the authority constituted by the Central Government and not the first respondent constituted by the State Government. These submissions sought to be repelled on behalf of the first respondent. Having considered the submissions made across the Bar and on perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that since the matter is remitted to the first respondent and the second respondent filed an application, which has been enquired into and since the appellant had no opportunity, it is not necessary at this particular stage to go into the merits of the case nor the objections raised. All these questions can be dealt with by the first respondent. It is well settled that every authority has jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether he has jurisdiction to entertain such application or there exists any employee or employer relationship. In view of the same, leaving it open to the appellant herein to take up this jurisdictional question, we do not find any merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Since the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh disposal, it is open for both the parties to file any additional pleadings or material, if any, in support of their contentions. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J) 2nd April 2008 RRB