S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE order dated July 25, 2001, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has been challenged in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the second respondent directed the petitioner to pay to the unofficial respondents herein full wages for the total period of suspension, which was extended for more than one year. In view of the contentions raised in this writ petition for consideration of this Court, it is not necessary for us to refer the factual aspect of the matter.

( 2 ) MR. Kasturi, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, firstly, contended that Section 47 (6) of the andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is ultra vires. He, secondly, contends that by reason of the impugned order dated July 25, 2001, the second respondent misinterpreted and misconstrued the provisions of Section 47 (6) of the Act.

( 3 ) MR. Kasturi, in support of his first contention, submitted that the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of Section 47 of the act must be held to be unreasonable in so far as the period of suspension having been confined only to one year is concerned. Learned counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document