LAWS(APH)-1980-12-23

I C M P COTON DEVLOPMENT ASOCIATION BOMBAY Vs. STATE

Decided On December 31, 1980
I.C.M.P. COTTON DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, BOMBAY Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.C.M.P. Cotton Development Research Association, Bombay is the petitioner in this writ petition. The third respondent herein, who is an employee of the petitioner and whose services were terminated preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority under section 41 (1) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966, referred to in this udgment as the Act. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement. As against the said order, a second appeal was preferred to the Labour Court, Guntur, under action 41 (3) of the Act' The Labour Court in Second Appeal No. 11 of 1976 allowed the appeal and remanded the case the Appellate Authority with a direction to allow both parties to cross-examine the witnesses and let in fresh evidence and then dispose of the matter according to law. After remand, one of the points which was considered by the Appellate Authority was whether the appellant was an employee within the meaning of the Act. The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the appellant cannot be said to be an employee under the Act. In the result, it held that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) As against the said decision, the third respondent preferred Second Appeal No. 20 of 1979 to the Labour Court, Guntur. Before the Labour Court, it was contended that the second appeal was not maintainable under section 41 (3) of the Act. This contention was negatived and it was held that section appeal was maintainable. The Labour Court thereupon directed the second appeal to be posted for hearing on merits to 4th November, 19SO. Challenging the said decision, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) The contention that the second appeal was not maintainable before the Labour Court, Guntur, has again been raised before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri B K. Seshu. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to set out sections 41 (2) and 41 (3) of the Act: