IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14460 of 2005 Between: Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam rep., by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director Opp:VUDA Park, Ramakrishna Beach Road, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Labour/Appellate Authority under Shops & Establishments Act, West Godavari District at Eluru. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour-cum-Authority under Shops and Establishments Act, Rajahmundry. 3 Penugonda Prakash Archibold, s/o Prakasham, r/o Rampa Erampalem, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction, declaring and setting aside the order dt.13-4-2005 passed in APSA Case No.2/05 on the file of the first respondent and the order dt.10-2-1999 in APSE Appeal No.5/98 on the file of the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction; award costs and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The learned counsel on either side fairly conceded that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.8570 of 1989 dated 18.9.2001 holding that Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, though outwardly appears to be a Society under the Societies Act, is an instrumentality of the State and Agency within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Further it is not a ‘shop’ within the meaning of Section 2(21) of Shops and Establishments Act, therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, following the judgment rendered in W.P.No.8570 of 1989 dated 18.9.2001, the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 10.2.1999 as confirmed by the first respondent vide order dated 13.4.2005 is set aside. However, this will not preclude the respondents 4 to 8 from approaching the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court and working out their remedies as available under law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 24.3.2008 DA