IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6447 of 1999 Between: A.Gopal S/o.A.Ramesh Kothapalli Village, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Authority under Section 48 of A.P.Shops & Establishment Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati. 2 The Management of Chittoor District Cooperatiive Marketing Society Ltd,. Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of respondents in not recovering the amounts as ordered in A.P.S.E.No.1/93 in accordance with Section 48 (5) of Act is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent no.1 to recover the amounts from respondents No.2 under Section 48(5) of Act and pay the same to the petitioner and grant such other relief and reliefs as the Hon'ble Courts deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: E. KALYANA RAM The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in recovering the amounts as ordered in APSC No.1/93 in accordance with Section 48(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to initiate steps for recovery of the amounts from respondent No.2. At the hearing, there is no representation for the parties. I have perused the record. The petitioner, who was an employee of respondent No.2, filed an application before respondent No.1 under Section 48 of the Act questioning his unlawful termination from service by proceedings dated 12.12.1992 by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 passed order on 31.03.1994 whereby the order of termination was set aside and respondent No.2 was directed to reinstate the petitioner with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. The petitioner averred that he made an application before respondent No.1 under Section 48(5) of the Act for recovery of the backwages from 05.02.1993 to 19.06.1995 from respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has not been enforcing the provisions of Section 48(5) of the Act. Under Section 48(5) of the Act, any amount directed to be paid under Section 48 of the Act may be recovered if the authority is not a Magistrate, by any Magistrate to whom the authority makes application in this behalf as if it was a fine imposed by such Magistrate. Under this provision, not only power is conferred on the authority to recover the money but also an obligation is cast on him for such recovery. Therefore, when the order passed by respondent No.1 is not given effect to by the party against whom such an order is passed, it is the bounden duty of respondent No.1 to initiate steps for recovery of the money under Section 48(5) of the Act. As no counter-affidavit is filed controverting the averments contained in the affidavit, it is reasonable to presume that respondent No.1 has not taken any steps to recover the amount awarded by it in its order dated 31.03.1994. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to initiate proceedings and take appropriate steps for recovery under Section 48(5) of the Act, if not already done, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.12.2008 va