HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8179 OF 2002 ORDER: The 3rd respondent was engaged by the petitioners as daily wage messenger. It is stated that the daily wage was Rs.50/-, and at the request of the 3rd respondent, the daily wages were being deposited into a savings bank account and he is used to withdraw the same at the end of every month. On 31-12-1999, the petitioners asked the 3rd respondent not to continue any further. The 3rd respondent filed SE Case No.2 of 2000 before the authority under Section 48(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Shops Act’) before the 2nd respondent, stating that he was removed from service without following the prescribed procedure. The petitioners raised an objection as to the very maintainability of the case, on the ground that the 3rd respondent was only a daily wage employee. Through order, dated 30-09-2000, the 2nd respondent allowed the case and directed reinstatement of the 3rd respondent with full back wages and continuity of service. 2. Petitioners filed an appeal being S.A. No.3 of 2001 before the 1st respondent. The appeal was dismissed through order, dated 08-02-2002. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Sri R.V. Nagabhushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3rd respondent was appointed only on daily wages and the provisions of the Shops Act did not apply to him. He submits that the respondents 1 and 2 have simply taken into account the fact that a sum of Rs.1,450/- was being withdrawn by the 3rd respondent and that constitutes his monthly salary. 4. The 3rd respondent died, during the pendency of the writ petition. His legal heirs are brought on record as respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. 5. Sri K. Anand Rao, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that respondents 1 and 2 have recorded a specific finding to the effect that the 3rd respondent was a regular employee and that no exception can be taken to the orders under challenge. 6. The appointment of the 3rd respondent was not through any written order. The petitioners specifically pleaded that he was being paid daily wages. Though the 3rd respondent pleaded that he was employed on monthly wages, he has not placed any material before the respondents 1 and 2 to prove that he was being paid monthly wages. Ex.A-1 is the passbook of the 3rd respondent, which only discloses that the daily wages were being deposited into the account. Further, Ex.B-2, filed by the petitioners, discloses that the 3rd respondent admitted that he was employed on daily wages of Rs.50/- per day. Ignoring these important documents, the 2nd respondent recorded a finding to the effect that the 3rd respondent was a regular employee on monthly wages. That finding is not supported by any record at all. The 1st respondent had upheld the order passed by the 2nd respondent. 7. It is not in dispute that the Shops Act does not apply to the cases of the employees, who are engaged on daily wage basis. Once that question is answered in favour of the petitioners, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. However, this Court is of the view that the 3rd respondent deserved to be compensated, for the abrupt discontinuation from the service irrespective of the nature of the earlier employment. It is not in dispute that he was working with the petitioners for a period of one year. During the pendency of the revision, the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- in all, in compliance with the interim directions, issued by this Court. It is felt that the ends of justice would meet, a further amount of Rs.30,000/- is paid as compensation. 8. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the orders under challenge are set aside. However, the petitioners shall be under obligation to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- in addition to what was deposited by them. The amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be deposited within a period of two months from today. The respondents 4, 5 and 6 shall be entitled to withdraw the same in equal shares. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J January 20, 2011. KTL/VJL