ANUPA BALACHANDRAIAH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Bata India Limited, seeking to set aside the order dtd. 9/2/2019 passed by the Authority under the T.S. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in S.E.No.4 of 2010 and also the orders passed in I.A.Nos.3 of 2018 and 1 of 2019 in the said S.E.No.4 of 2010. They also sought for quashing the show cause notice dtd. 15/3/2021 issued by the 2nd respondent to explain as to why necessary recovery proceedings should not be initiated against all the petitioners for non-compliance of the orders in S.E.No.4 of 2010.

(2.) Heard Sri Anil Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Divya Adepu, counsel for petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri K.Nirmal Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

(3.) The aforesaid S.E.No.4 of 2010 has been filed by respondent No.3 herein seeking to set aside the termination made by the petitioners herein and to reinstate him into employment. In the said S.E. The application in I.A.No.3 of 2018 was filed questioning the maintainability of the S.E., on the ground of delay. The authority under the Shops and Establishments Act has dismissed the said application by order dtd. 22/10/2018 with an observation that the petitioners herein did not take the plea of delay at the initial stage of filing the S.E. and that the said objection was taken after Eight years of filing the S.E. It was also observed that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the said Authority and that it has got discretionary power in the matter of condoning the delay. Subsequently, the S.E. was entertained and allowed by order dtd. 9/2/2019 directing the petitioners herein to reinstate respondent No.3 with immediate effect at the branch from where he was terminated, with full back wages less the subsistence allowance paid, if any, continuity of service and all attendant benefits. Seeking to set aside the order dtd. 9/2/2019 in S.E.No.4 of 2010, the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.1 of 2019, on the ground that it was an ex-parte order. The said application was also dismissed on merits, with an observation that the S.E. was contested by the petitioners herein and it was decided on merits.