In case of repugnancy between a State law and a Central law on a matter falling within the Concurrent List, the State law prevails if it has received the President's assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition is a Co-operative Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968. The third respondent was not at all material times the Manager of the Petitioner-society. Charges of misappropriation were framed against the third respondent by the petitioner-society by its charge memo dated 15-9-1967. Challenging the said charge memo the third respondent filed W. P. No. 1807 of 1967, but did not submit any explanation in regard to the charges contained therein. The petitioner-society constituted a disciplinary committee to enquire into the allegations contained in the charge memo, but the third respondent, though duly served with a notice, did not appear before the said committee or participate in the enquiry held by it. The Disciplinary Committee thereafter issued a second show cause notice dated 11/02/1968 directing the third respondent to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service, but the third respondent failed to show cause against the same, and the petitioner-society, after perusing the report and the findings of the said committee, dismissed the third respondent from service by its order dated 20/02/1968. The third respondent thereafter filed writ petition No. 1253 of 1968 for quashing the said order of dismissal. Writ Petition No. 1807 of 1967 as well as Writ Petition No. 1253 of 1968 was dismissed by this Court by a common order on the 2nd of April, 1970.

( 2 ) THE third respondent thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer, Srikakulam, who held conciliation proceedings but ultimately submitted a failure report to the Government. The Government in the first instance, declined to refer the dispute for adjudication by its order dated 5/11/1971, on the ground that the third respondent has not availed of the opportunities given to him to defend himself against the charges framed and the action proposed to be taken against him. The Government, however, thereafter changed its mind, and G. O. Ms. No. 268, dated 27/04/1974, it referred the dispute arising out of the dismissal of the third respondent for adjudication to the Labour Court, Guntur, the reference being in respect of two matters viz. , (a) whether the dismissal of the third respondent by the petitioner-society was justified and (b) if it was not justified to what relief was the third respondent entitled?

( 3 ) THE petitioner-society has filed the present petition against the State Government as the first respondent, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Guntur, as the second respondent, and against the third respondent, for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate direction or order to quash the reference in G. O. Ms. No. 268, dated 27-4-1974, and to issue consequential directions prohibiting the second respondent from adjudicating upon I. D. No. 42/1974 on his file. On the writ petition coming up before our brother Lakshmaiah, by consent of parties, the matter was referred, by his order dated 6/04/1976, referred the matter to a Full Bench for resolving the conflict between the two sets of decisions to which they referred in their said order. The learned Chief Justice has, thereafter constituted this Full Bench to hear the writ petition.

( 4 ) THE conflicting judgments mentioned in the referring judgment of the Division Bench are the unreported judgments of two Division Benches dated 25-7-1973 and 16-9-1975 in W. P. No. 5494 of 1971 (Andh Pra) and W. A. No. 899 of 1974 (Andh Pra) respectively on the one hand, and the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. Krishnaswami v. Assam Tea Depot, (1976 - I APLJ 291): (1977 Lab IC 432) on the other. In the former two unreported decisions, the view taken was that where Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the Shops Act) was applicable, the remedy under s. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the I. D