THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.15069 and 22146 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Both these writ petitions arise under similar circumstances and are between the same parties. Hence, they are being disposed of through common order. The first respondent in both the matters was employed, initially as an attender and thereafter he was promoted as salesman, in Pulletikuduru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, petitioners herein. His wages were initially at Rs.1,995/- per month. On the ground that the said salary is in excess of limit imposed under Section 116-C of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), wages were reduced to Rs.1,595/- per month. The reduced salaries were paid for the period between 01.04.2005 and 31.08.2005. He filed Case No.M.W.306 of 2006 before the Authority under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘Wages Act’) claiming difference of wages. Through order dated 21.04.2008, the first petitioner was directed to pay difference of minimum wages from 01.03.2003 to 31.03.2004 and unpaid wages from 01.04.2005 to 31.08.2005 Challenging the retrenchment beyond 31.08.2005, he also filed a case in APSE No.10 of 2006 before the Authority under Section 48 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (for short ‘Shops Act’) and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada. Through order dated 28.03.2005, the Commissioner directed reinstatement of the first respondent. W.P.No.15069 of 2008 is filed against the order dated 28.03.2005 passed by the Commissioner under Shops Act APSE No.10 of 2006 and W.P.No.22146 of 2008 is filed against the order dated 21.04.2008 in Case No.M.W.306 of 2006. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent. It is not in dispute that the first respondent was employed with the petitioners initially as attender and thereafter he was promoted as salesman. There may have been justification for the petitioners in reducing the salary on account of restriction imposed under Section 116-C of the Act. However, Wages Act, which is enacted by the Parliament would have precedence over the State enactment. There is no dispute as to the period for which the first respondent worked and the wages paid to him. The authority under the Wages Act has jurisdiction. This Court is of the view that a decent balance needs to be struck between the requirement under the Wages Act on the one hand and the restriction imposed under the Act on the other hand. While admitting W.P.No.22146 of 2008 on 14.10.2008, this Court directed the petitioners to deposit half of the amount covered by the order impugned therein. The condition has since been complied with, the first respondent has withdrawn the amount. Insofar as the order of retrenchment of first respondent is concerned, the Commissioner of Labour has undertaken a detailed discussion and held that there is no basis for retrenchment and directed reinstatement. By virtue of interim order dated 15.07.2008 passed in W.P.No.15069 of 2008, the first respondent came to be reinstated into service. Hence, W.P.No.15069 of 2008 is dismissed upholding the order impugned dated 28.03.2005 in APSE No.10 of 2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada. W.P.No.22146 of 208 is disposed of directing that the amount paid by the petitioners in compliance with the interim order 14.10.2008 shall constitute compliance with the order impugned dated 21.04.2008 in Case No.M.W.306 of 2006. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 24th June, 2010 GHN