S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) PER All these Writ Appeals involving similar questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

( 2 ) THE question which arises for consideration in these appeals is as regards the interpretation of the provisions of Section 49 of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act (for short the Act ) vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent herein to entertain an application in terms of sub-section 1 of Section 48 thereof.

( 3 ) THE admitted fact of the matter, before adverting to the question involved in these appeals, may be noticed: the appellant-company, a company registered and incorporated under the Indian companies Act, with a view to expand its business activity had entered into a purchase agreement with respondents 3 and 4 herein who were essentially engaged in the sale and distribution of non-alcoholic beverages being manufactured and bottled by another company being Spectra Bottling Company Limited. Although the appellant herein had no liability to take over the services of the employees of respondents 3 and 4, they agreed to take over on its rolls only such of those employees who had no adverse remarks against them or employees against whom no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated or pending as on the date of take over of the firms. The concerned employee who has been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in each of the respective Writ petitions herein was one of such employees against whom disciplinary proceedings had been initiated or pending at the relevant time. In the enquiry, all the employees were found guilty of the charges of misappropriation. Consequently, they were dismissed from service by orders dated August 25, 1999. Thereafter, each of the concerned employees filed an application purported to be under section 48 (1) of the said Act before the 1st respondent herein, claiming, inter alia the following reliefs:"the petitioner, therefore, prays that this hon ble Court may be pleased to set aside the removal orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide orders dated August 25, 1999 and grant him the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and all other attendant benefits and with continuity of service, in the interest of justice".

( 4 ) THE 1st respondent-authority by orders dated October 17, 2000 set aside the orders of dismissal holding that the action of the respondent Nos. 3 and/or 4 was illegal and directed reinstatement of the employees in the organisation of the appellant treating them as having not been dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present Writ Petitions. By the common order under appeal, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ applications as not maintainable under Article 226 of the constitution of India on the ground that the appellant had not availed of the alternative remedy of Second Appeal provided under section 48 (3) of the Act.

( 5 ) THOUGH the Writ Petitions were dismissed on ground of availability of alternative remedy, since both the parties had argued the matter on merits also, we have decided the questions involved on merits.

( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the relationship of employer and employee existed between the respondents 3 and 4 and the concerned employees. The appellant herein was merely the purchaser of the undertakings of respondents 3 and 4.

( 7 ) THE concerned employees in the petition filed before the authority under Section 48 (1) of the said Act inter alia stated:"the petitioner submits that when the petitioner and others asked the 1st respondent why they were suspended and that why they were not transferred to the 3rd respondent, then the 1st respondent stated that they will be transferred in due course. The petitioner submits that in the first week, i. e. , on January 4, 1999 only he was issued with the charge sheet dated December 22, 1998 alleging certain false allegations. The petitioner submits that had he committed any miscond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document