G VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. SIR SILK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the order of our learned brother P.C.Reddy, J (as he then was) dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of the Labour Court dated 14-3-1980 in Second Appeal No.45 of 1979.

(2.) The appellant was initially appointed by the Sir Silk limited, the first respondent, on September 17, 1963. He continued to be an employee of the first respondent till 31st October, 1966 when he was appointed by the Birla Institute of Scientific Research, the fourth respondent. He was transfered to the first respondent on 27-9-1976, but within a short time he was directed to report to Mr.Mandelia at the office of the fourth respondent by an order dated 26-10-1976. He was further informed by the fourth respondent that his transfer to the first respondent stood cancelled. The services of the appellant were terminated on 27-10-1976. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order of the fourth respondent, terminating his services, before the Appellate Authority under section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impleading both the first respondent and the fourth respondent as respondents in the appeal. The Appellate Authority, the third respondent, held that the appellant was the employee of the first respondent and not of the fourth respondent, as such the order of termination passed by the fourth respondent was illegal and directed the first respondent to reinstate him with full back wages. The first respondent challenged the correctness of the order of the third respondent before the Labour Court, the second respondent, S.A.No.45 of 1979. On 14-3-80 the second respondent set aside the order of the third respondent and allowed the second appeal holding that there was no evidence to prove that the relationship of the petitioner and the first respondent was that of the employer and the employee. This judgment of the second respondent was confirmed in the writ petition.

(3.) Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, the appellant party in person, contended that even assuming that he was only an employee of the fourth respondent, the order of termination was passed by Mr. Mandelia who was not the competent authority. According to him one Mr.Bhandari was the competent authority who had neither delegated the power to terminate the services of the appellant nor can such a delegation be valid in law even if there was such a delegation.