P MANOHAR REDDY Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 53 OF THE A P SHOP AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the appellate authority under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, these four writ petitions are filed by an employee of the second respondent-company. To decide the questions raised therein it would suffice if the facts in W.P. No.22172 of 1997 are noted.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a veterinary service representative in the respondent-company with effect from 10-12-1989. He met with an accident on 13-04-1992. After undergoing extensive treatment he reported for duty along with a medical fitness certificate. His joining report was accepted, he was permitted to join duty, the period from the date of his accident till he joined duty was treated as leave, he was paid medical expenses and other benefits and he commenced work from 11-01-1993. While matters stood thus the second respondent, vide letter dated 05-06-1993, asked him to "stop work" from 08-06-1993. Petitioner would submit that, as the order to "stop work" was neither an order of suspension nor termination of his services, he was continued to be paid full wages. However, from 01-10-1993, the 2nd respondent stopped paying wages. As several representations, seeking payment of wages, were of no avail the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Authority under Sections 50 and 51 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming wages from 01-10-1993 to 31-05-1994 and bonus for the year 1992-93. The Authority, after enquiry and by order dated 08-05-1996, held that, since the respondent-company had issued an order to stop work, the petitioner was entitled to wages, that the claim was maintainable under Section 51 of the Act, that the respondent-company had not paid wages wilfully and intentionally and that there were no bona fides in withholding wages for the past several years. The application was allowed and the respondent-company was directed to deposit the claim amount along with one time compensation equal to the amount to be deposited.

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the appellate authority under Section 53 of the Act.