IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3283 of 2008 Between: M/s Zedds Shoe Shop,rep.by its Proprietor, Sri Rajesh Rowtani,S/o.Ramachander Rowtani Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad R/o. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Authority under Section 48 of the A.P., Shops and Establishments Act 1988 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour Hyderabad-III, TY.Anjaiah Shramika Bhavan, R.T.C. X Roads, Hyderabad-20. 2 Sri Mohd.Asif, S/o Mohd.Yousuf, R/o. C/o SHELTER Hyderabad Shops and Industrial Establishments Employees Union, 3-4-472, Barkatpura, Hyderabad-27. .....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 call for the records from the 1st respondent in S.E.Nos.8 of 2007 to 19 of 2007 and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, and quash the Order passed by 1 st respondent in S.E.Nos.8 of 2007 to 19 of 2007, dated 1-2- 2008, holding the same as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and contrary to Rule 22 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act 1988; and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2:K.K.CHAKRAVARTHY The Court made the following : ORDER: The 2nd respondent is employed with the petitioner, a private business firm. The 2nd respondent approached the 1st respondent, the Authority under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”), complaining that he was unlawfully terminated from service. He intended to take the assistance of one Mr.Sudershan Singh, President of a Trade Union, with registration No.B-2522. On receipt of notice from the 1st respondent, the petitioner raised an objection as to the capacity of said Sudershan Singh to represent the 2nd respondent. Through its order, dated 01.02.2008, the 1st respondent accorded permission to the representative. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour and Sri K.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. In the ordinary course of things, the proceedings under the Act, particularly before the 1st respondent, are to be instituted and defended by the parties themselves. However, a facility is created for them to avail the services of a legal practitioner or an official of a registered Trade Union or the association of employees, to act on their behalf. The same is clear from Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Rules, 1990 (for short “the Rules”) and Form-XIV prescribed thereunder. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent wanted to avail the services of one Mr.Sudershan Singh, said to be the President of a registered Trade Union. The petitioner contends that the said Sudershan Singh is not the head of any recognized trade union and that he has absolutely no relationship with the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent proceeded as though mere filing of an application in Form XIV is sufficient for granting permission to workman to avail the services of an official of recognized trade union or a legal practitioner. A perusal of Rule 22 of the Rules discloses that apart from filing an application under Form XIV, the person, who intends to represent him, must also state his interest, in the matter; through a written statement. In this case, no reference is made to such a written statement. Therefore, the order passed by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained in law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the 1st respondent shall ensure compliance of Rule 22 of the Rules and examine the application in accordance with the relevant provisions. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.10.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ