IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15545 of 1999 Between: K.C.P. SUGAR AND INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED, Rep. by its Plant Manager, Lakshmipuram, Challapalli Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Authority under Payment of Grantuity Act 1972 & Dy.Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Appellate Authority under Payment of Grantuity Act 1972 & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Jasti Mohan Rao, S/o Anjaiah, Challapalli Agraharam-521126, Challapalli Mandal, Krishna District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT V.UMADEVI Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP FOR LABOUR Counsel for respondent No.3:None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated nil in Case No. I.A1/99 in PGA 1/99, whereby respondent No.1 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration of the application of respondent No.3 filed for condonation of delay in making the application before respondent No.2 for payment of gratuity. Heard Ms. V.Umadevi, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for respondent No.3. I have perused the record. Respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 with a claim petition for payment of differential amount of gratuity for a period of seven years. The said application was allowed by respondent No.2. The petitioner questioned the said order before respondent No.1. The main contention advanced by the petitioner before respondent No.1 was that the application filed by respondent No.3 was barred by limitation and that respondent No.2 has not properly considered the reasons put forth by the petitioner. In the light of the said submission, respondent No.1 remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration on the delay in filing the claim petition by respondent No.3. In my considered view, by remanding the case to respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has not committed any jurisdictional error nor the order of remand has adversely affected the interests of the petitioner. Indeed from the order of respondent No.2, it could be seen that the petitioner raised the objection regarding delay before respondent No.2 and the latter rejected the same by stating that it was satisfied with the explanation given in the affidavit of the workman on the delay. Be that as it may, respondent No.1 merely remanded the case to respondent No.2 for deciding the aspect of delay afresh. On these facts, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by respondent No.1. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 4th December, 2008 vrn