( 1 ) THE Writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent in S. ANo. 4/89 dt. 13-11-90.

( 2 ) THE facts in nut-shell are that the services of the third respondent were terminated by the Management. Aggrieved by the said termination, workman/3rd respondent filed an appeal in A. P. S. E. No. 11/89 under Section 48 (2) of the A. P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1988. The appellate Authority by its order dated 2-9-1989 granted the relief of re-instatement with full back wages. Against the said order of the Appellate Authority, the management filed S. A. No. 4/89 under section 48 (3) of the said Act The learned second Appellate Authority dismissed the second appeal on the ground that the management has not complied with the conditions contemplated under Section 48 (3) of the said Act. Therefore, the Writ petition has been filed by the Management assailing the order of the 2nd appellate authority.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the Management i. e. , Writ-petitioners submits that the 1st respondent/2nd Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the second Appeal for non-observance of the conditions laid down in Section 48 (3) of the Act. The appeal ought to have been returned for compliance of the provisions contained in the said provision but he had dismissed the same. Secondly, he also submits that even on the merits, the 2nd Appellate Authority held that the order of the 1st Appellate authority is not proper. Therefore for these reasons, he prays that the writ petition has to be allowed and the appeal has to be remanded back to the 2nd Appellate authority for fresh disposal.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for 3rd respondent/workman submits that the condition laid down in Sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Act has to be complied before any appeal is to be preferred against the order of the 1st appellate Authority. Therefore, for non compliance of the condition laid down in the said provision, the appeal is liable to be rejected and the 2nd Appellate Authority has quite correctly held that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the violation of Section 48 (3) of the Act. He also relies on a Judgment in Hotel Imrose v. Narasimha and Others (1) 1991 (1) ALT 52 (NRC) of this Court, wherein it is held that the Second Appeal would not lie if the appellant does not satisfy and comply the condition laid down in Section 48 (3) of the act.

( 5 ) I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel.

( 6 ) THE requirement of Section 48 (3) of the Act is a mandatory requirement, in which the Management is bound to deposit the amount which was ordered by the 1st Appellate Authority and on such compliance only the second appeal is maintainable.

( 7 ) SUB-SECTION 3 of Section 48 of the a. P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1988 is reproduced below:"3. Against any decision of the authority under Sub-section (2), a second appeal shall lie to such authority as may be notified by the government within thirty days from the date of communication of the decision and the decision of such authority on such appeal shall be final and binding on both the employer and the employee and shall be given effect to within such time as may be specified in the order of that Authority: provided that the second appeal shall not be entertained unless the employer deposits the entire amount of back wages as ordered by the appellate authority under Sub-section (2) or the amount of compensation ordered as the case may be; provided further that if the second appeal is against the order of reinstatement given by the appellate authority under Sub-section (2), the employee shall be entitled to wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings before the appellate authority. "

( 8 ) AS per the first proviso, there is a specific embargo for entertaining the appeal that it shall not be entertained unless the employer deposits the entire amount of back wages as ordered by the appellate authority under S