Challa Kodanda Ram, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner in W.P. No. 17684 of 1999 is appellant. The Writ Petition was filed questioning the order dated 25.05.1999, passed by the 1st respondent in S.A. No. 4 of 1998, confirming the order dated 15.04.1998 of the 2nd respondent passed in S.A. No. 5 of 1997.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts are that the 3rd respondent was appointed as a Personnel Officer by the appellant on 19.12.1991 on temporary basis and was kept on probation for a period of one year, or such other period as may be extended from time to time. After completion of one year, probation was extended for a further period of six months. The 3rd respondent was removed from service, through order dated 27.12.1993. He approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 20793 of 1993 and an order of interim suspension was passed in W.P.M.P. No. 26121 of 1993. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was disposed of without any relief. Thereby the order of termination was enforced with effect from 01.02.1994. Once again 3rd respondent filed Writ Petition before this Court vide W.P. No. 6219 of 1994, and the said Writ Petition was disposed of through order dated 11.06.1997, by this Court directing the 3rd respondent to avail the alternative remedy by invoking provisions of the under A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). The 3rd respondent approached the competent authority under the Act, who in turn set aside the order of termination and directed to reinstate the 3rd respondent apart from directing the payment of Rs. 1,76,000/ -. The appeal filed by the writ petitioner before the 1st respondent -2nd appellate authority, ended in dismissal. Questioning the same the Writ Petition No. 17684 of 1999 was filed. The same was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 21.01.2004 mainly on the ground that both the authorities under the Act concurrently found that the termination of the 3rd respondent was mala fide and without conducting enquiry, and that there is no irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the authorities below. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law. In his attack of the orders of the authorities below he urged three grounds viz., 1) The 3rd respondent being a Personnel Officer, was not an 'employee' within the definition under Section 2(8) of the Act, and his salary was also above is Rs. 2,500/ - and thereby the Act has no application, on account of Section 73(1)(A) of the Act. 2) Even otherwise, the 3rd respondent is a Personnel Officer, who is in -charge and responsible for the entire personnel working in the organization, and was occupying managerial position; and when this objection was raised, the authority below had just referred to liberty given to the 3rd respondent to approach the authorities under the Act, in W.P. No. 6219 of 1994. He contends that the order in W.P. No. 6219 of 1994 has only disentitled the 3rd respondent to approach this Court directly and that it does not confer power upon the authority to entertain and pass orders, unless basic requirement of the 3rd respondent satisfying the eligibility criteria is fulfilled. 3) The appointment of 3rd respondent was on temporary basis and subject to successful completion of probation, and once the probation was not declared, he had no vested right to continue in service and the direction issued by the authorities is totally unsustainable. He submits that the question of violation of principles of natural justice do not arise, in the facts of the case, since the non -declaration of probation does not require issuance of notice.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, Sri C.H. Satish Kumar, submitted that the orders of the authorities below as well as the learned single Judge, that so far as first ground is concerned, it is not open for the appellant to contend that the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction, in view of orders in W.P. No. 6219 of 1994 Dt. 11.06.1997. He further submits that though the 3rd respondent was given a designation of Personnel Officer, he was not in the managerial cadre and in fact he was taking the orders from the Secretary of the Society, who was the ultimate executive head, and in that view of the matter, exemption under Section 73 of the Act, has no application. Learned counsel would further submit that the 3rd respondent had worked for about two years without any blemish, and that itself would go to show that his probation is required to be declared.;