THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.23261 OF 2009 DATED: 17.12.2009 Between: Kandrakota P.A.C.S., Kandrakota Village, Peddapuram mandal, E.G. District, rep. by Its President Kata Ramu. … Petitioner And 1. Assistant Commissioner of Labour, The Authority Under Section 48 of the APSE Act, 1988., Rajahmundry, E.G. District & 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.23261 OF 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 25.8.2006 in A.P.S.E.No.6 of 2006 passed by the 1st respondent – Assistant Commissioner of Labour, who is the authority under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal. The said case – A.P.S.E.No.6 of 2006 - was preferred by the 2nd respondent herein under Section 48 (1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 questioning the termination of his services. Admittedly, he was initially appointed by the 3rd respondent – Anuru Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited - which was subsequently merged with the writ petitioner - Kandrakota Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited. Both the 3rd respondent as well as the writ petitioner were made parties to S.E.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the 1st respondent. A counter-affidavit was filed by both the opposite parties i.e., the writ petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent society. However they failed to appear before the 1st respondent thereafter. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent passed an order on merits on 25.8.2006 holding that the termination of the 2nd respondent was illegal and accordingly directed his reinstatement with back-wages and continuity of service. The said order dated 25.8.2006 is now challenged in this writ petition contending that the writ petitioner was not aware of the proceedings in S.E.No.6 of 2006 since there was no notice to it after the merger of the 3rd respondent society. It is also contended that S.E.No.6 of 2006 itself was not maintainable before the 1st respondent - Authority appointed under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 – in view of Section 129 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is true under Section 129 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, the provisions of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 and the A.P. (Telangana Area) Shops and Establishments Act, 1951 are made inapplicable to the Co-operative Societies. However, subsequently, both the said Acts have been repealed and A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 has been enacted. Section 77 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 expressly provides that notwithstanding anything in the A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 the provisions of the said Act shall apply to the Co-operative Societies. Having interpreted the provisions under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, it has been held by this Court in A. SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU & ORS. v. GOVT. OF A.P. AND ANOTHER[1] that the employees of the Co-operative Societies come within the purview of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that S.E.No.6 of 2006 itself was not maintainable before the 1st respondent is without any basis and cannot be accepted. The other contention that the impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent without notice to the petitioner society is equally untenable. The material placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent revealed that notice was served on both the writ petitioner society as well as the 3rd respondent society in S.E.No.6 of 2006 and a counter-affidavit was filed by the petitioner society itself since by that time the merger had already taken place. Since they failed to appear before the 1st respondent the impugned order came to be passed on the basis of the material available on record assigning cogent reasons. Hence, it cannot be held to be an ex parte order and if the petitioner society is aggrieved it is open to the petitioner to work out the remedy of appeal available under Section 48 (3) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the findings recorded by the 1st respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the remedy of appeal. If any such appeal is preferred, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that the interim order granted by this Court on 29.10.2009 stands vacated. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.17.12.2009 gbs [1] 2005 (5) ALD 682