N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in all the writ petitions is the District Co-operative Central bank Ltd. , West Godavari, Eluru. The petitioner-bank filed the above writ petitions seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the first proviso to Sec. 48 (3) of A. P. Shops and Establishment Act 1988 as unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra vires and inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to entertain and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders dt. 29-12-1992 of the 3rd respondent without insisting on the deposit of back wages.

( 2 ) A few facts that are necessary to dispose of these writ petitions are as follows: The petitioner bank engaged the workmen in all the writ petitions (4th respondent in all the writ petitions) as N. M. Rs. on daily wage basis in the petitioner bank, hereinafter referred to as the Management . Subsequently they were terminated from service w. e. f. 1-10-1987 on the ground that their appointments were made without following the procedure. Questioning the said termination the workmen filed writ petitions and this Hon ble Court disposed of the writ petition directing the workmen to file an appeal under sec. 48 (2) of the Act and also directed the management to continue the workmen in service during the pendency of the appeal. The workmen preferred appeal before the 3rd respondent - Asst. Commissioner of Labour who in turn allowed the same holding the termination of the workmen as invalid and directed the management to regularise the services of the workmen from the date of joining into service and confer all attendant benefits on par with regular employees. The 3rd respondent further observed in the appeal that the difference of wages and other monetary benefits payable to the workman from the date of his joining services till the date of passing the order shall be deemed as back wages within the meaning of Sec. 48 (3) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the management filed second appeal before the 2nd respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Labour who in turn rejected to accept the appeal in proceedings No. 8/10420/93, dt. 8-11-1993 and directed the management to deposit the back wages as per the orders of the 3rd respondent dt. 29-12-1992 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent purporting to act under proviso to Sec. 48 (3) of the Shops and Establishment Act, which provides that the second appeal shall not be entertained unless the employer deposits the entire amount of back wages as ordered by the appellate authority, directed to deposit the back wages. The management contends that the said proviso is an unreasonable restriction and it is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of india as no such restriction is imposed on the employee who wishes to prefer an appeal. It deprives the management of its legitimate right of agitatingbefore the appellate authority. The petitioner also submits that there is no reinstatement ordered by the 3rd respondent and, as such, ordering back wages in the absence of reinstatement is not in accordance with law. Hence, these writ petitions.

( 3 ) SINCE the question of law involved in all these writ petitions is common, they are clubbed and disposed of by a common order.

( 4 ) TWO points are raised in these writ petitions - firstly whether the first proviso to sub-sec. (3) of Section 48 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and establishments Act 1988 is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India as it envisages that in case where the employer wants to file second appeal against the orders of the appellate authority, the employer has to deposit the payment so ordered by the appellate authority, to get the second appeal entertained, and, whereas such a requirement or condition is not imposed on the employee if he desires to prefer such appeal; and secondly whether the authority is justified in ordering payment of difference of wages f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document