HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B. PRAKASH RAO W.P.No. 21578 of 1996 Date: 25-11-2010 Between M/s. Engineers India Ltd. ………… Petitioner And The 2nd Appellate Authority under Section 48(3) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988-cum-The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam and others. …… Respondents HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B. PRAKASH RAO W.P.No. 21578 of 1996 ORDER: The only point arises for consideration in this writ petition, filed at the instance of the management, is in regard to the applicability of the provisions of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) to the petitioner and whether the provisions of the Act can be invoked by any of the aggrieved employees? There is no dispute with regard to the facts involved in the case that the contesting respondent No.3 is an employee with the petitioner and subsequent thereto, his services were given up. Hence he invoked Section 48 of the Act before the competent authority and the order, dated 31-03-1994 was passed against the petitioner herein and in favour of the third respondent-employee holding that he is entitled to be reemployed and also directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4,290/- towards compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed S.A.No.4 of 1994 before the first respondent and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. As far as invoking the aforesaid provision is concerned, the same is no longer res integra in view of the decision in JOSE SABESTIAN AND OTHERS v. COMPUTER MAINTENANCE CORPORATION LTD, HYDERABD & OTHERS [1], wherein a learned single Judge of this Court, while considering similar such situation in respect of Computer Maintenance Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, which is also a Government of India undertaking, held that the provision of the said Act are not applicable to such establishment. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner is also an establishment, which is being totally taken over by the Government of India. Though at the inception it was a joint venture, it is now fully controlled by the Government of India. In view of the same and following the said decision of this Court with which I am in full agreement, it is clear that the very invoking the provision by the third respondent is wholly unsustainable and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order, dated 12-10-1995 in S.A.No.4 of 1994 on the file of the second appellate authority and the order, dated 31-03-1994 in A.P.S.E.F.A.No.4 of 1993 on the file of the Authority under the said Act, are set aside. No order as to costs. ____________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, HACJ Date: 25-11-2010 YCR [1] 1993 (1) LLJ 374