( 1 ) IN these cases, a short but important question arises for consideration of this court - whether, in the absence of any rule, filing of a separate petition for condoning the delay in filing the appeal under the Act and the Rules, is necessary ?

( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent-employees filed appeals before the1st respondent-authority under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act,1988 (for short the Act ) against the orders of retrenchment from service passed by the petitioner herein. The said appeals were numbered as S. E. 38 and 39 of 1999 on the file of the 1st respondent. While so, the appeals were dismissed for default. The 2nd respondent filed I. A. Nos. 24 and 25 of 2002 with a request to restore the applications (appeals) and also to condone the delay in filing the said petitions to set aside the orders of default. The said applications were allowed on 14-5-2003 and the delay was condoned and the appeals were restored. Thereafter, the petitioner filed additional counter affidavits and it was argued before the authority that the appeals themselves were filed with delay of about one year and there was no prayer to condone the delay and, therefore, the appeals were not maintainable. Under those circumstances, the orders dated 7-7-2003 in S. E. Nos. 38 and 39 of 1999 were passed condoning the delay in filing the appeals and posting the matter for evidence. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petitions are filed. Though initially, the Writ Petitions are filed challenging the Orders dated 14-5-2003 in I. A. Nos. 24 and 25 of 2002 and the Orders dated 7-7-2003 passed in S. E. Nos. 38 and 39 of 1999, but a Memo dated 27-11-2003 is filed restricting the challenge only to the Orders dated 7-7-2003 passed in S. E. Nos. 38 and 39 of 1999, as both the reliefs cannot be sought for in one Writ Petition.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the memorandum of appeals in S. E. Nos. 38 and 39 of 1999 should have accompanied by separate petitions for condoning the delay in filing the appeals before the authority. Admittedly, the said petitions were not filed by the 2nd respondent herein and as such, the appeals themselves were liable to be rejected at the threshold. The authority below did not do so. On the other hand, when an objection was taken to this extent by filing additional counters, the 1st respondent-authority dealt with the same and passed the following order:"it is true that there was no delay condonation petition accompanying the original application, which has already been numbered as SE/39/99. The authority numbered it ignoring the delay. Further, in the memorandum of Appeal in Para No. 5, the applicant has sought to explain the delay and requested the authority to condone the entire delay in filing. The opposite party has opposed the delay in the counter filed on 23-11-1999. Having gone through the record, I am of the opinion that this is a technical flaw, if any, of not filing a separate delay condonation petition, does not stand in the way of the applicant seeking relief for reinstatement. Therefore, I do not hesitate to condone the delay in filing the application at this stage. It is only a technical flaw which the applicant in some other form explained in the main application. In the result, the entire delay is condoned retaining the same number as SE/39/99. Therefore, the application is posted for evidence of the applicant on 15-7-2003 at 3. 00 p. m. before the undersigned. "

( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that their counsel on 5-7-2003 brought to the notice of the 1st respondent that the main appeals filed by the 2nd respondent are barred by limitation and there are no separate petitions filed for condonation of delay. The services of the 2nd respondent herein were terminated consequent to the closure of the establishment on 31-7-1998 and they filed appeals after the expiry of statutory period of limitation without there being any applications for condonation of delay and the 1st responde