V P RAJU Vs. SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K. Balagopal , the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V. Hari Haran, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting Respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) The short question, which arises for consideration in this writ petition after hearing the Counsel on either side, is the scope and applicability of second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

(3.) The facts leading to the case are that the petitioner is an employee with the Respondents 2 and 3 herein and he was removed from service by the second respondent on 7-12-2001, against which, he filed an appeal under Section 48(1) of the Act and ultimately the same was allowed as per the orders in S.E. Case No.l of 2001, dated 2-6-2003 directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service with l/3rd back wages. Challenging the same, the respondents-Management filed the second appeal before the second Appellate Authority under Section 48(3) of the Act, which was taken up as S.A. Case No.6 of 2003. During the pendency thereof, the petitioner has filed two applications vide IA.Nos.23 and 24 of 2003 seeking for payment of the entire back wages as ordered. Of these applications, IA.No.23 of 2003 was allowed by directing the respondents to deposit the remaining back wages, however, dismissed the other application in IA.No.24 of 2003 by a common order holding that the petitioner is not entitled to wages last drawn, in spite of the fact that according to him, the petitioner was out of employment. As against the said orders, the present writ petition is filed, inter alia, claiming that as provided under the aforesaid provisions, he is entitled to the wages last drawn by him during pendency of the proceedings before the Appellate Authority. Initially, at the time of admission, this Court granted interim directions as per the orders in W.P.M.P No.6541 of 2004, dated 22-7-2004 to pay his last drawn wages as per the aforesaid provisions pending the writ petition. Since the said order was not complied with by the respondents, the petitioner has filed the contempt in C.C. No. 1664 of 2004. After order of notice before admission and filing of the counter by the respondents, both the Counsel requested for taking up the main case itself for disposal along with the contempt case having regard to the involvement of virtually common questions.