( 1 ) M/s. Vissa Television Network Limited, has filed these writ petitions assailing the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, namely the Authority under Section 48 ot the A. P. Shops and Establishments act-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour-ll, Hyderabad, setting aside the orders of termination passed by the petitioner against the 1st respondent-workman and directing the petitioner to reinstate the 1st respondent-workman into service and pay half of the back wages from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to non-renewal of their licence, the petitioner stopped its operations temporarily, and the licence having been renewed, it started its operations from December, 2004. Even though the 1st respondent has not been attending to duties, he has made a false claim before the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner had not been paying him salary and had illegally terminated his services in January, 2005. However, the 2nd respondent without looking into the stark realities, without looking into the legal position and without providing opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, has entertained the claim of the 1st respondent-workman, and passed the impugned order, setting aside the order of termination and directed the petitioner to reinstate the 1st respondent-workman into service and pay half of the back wages from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement, which is illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that even though the petitioner has alternative remedy by way of second appeal under Section 48 (3) of the A. P. Shops and establishments Act, 1988 (for short the Act), yet availability of alternative remedy is not a bar for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and more so when the 2nd respondent had acted wholly illegally in entertaining the claim of the 1st respondent-workman. In support of his submission that on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, the Court cannot refuse to entertain writ petition against an order, which is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of a division Bench of this court in Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour2004 (7) ALT 9 (DB ). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 3 ) THOUGH the petitioner contends that the claim made by the 1st respondent-workman is false, the fact remains, the claim was contested by the petitioner by filing counter. However, a reading of the impugned order would disclose that no evidence was let in by the parties. Despite non-adducing of evidence by the parties in support of their respective claims, the 2nd respondent had entertained the claim of the 1st respondent-workman and allowed it by setting aside the termination order, and directed the petitioner to reinstate the 1st respondent-workman into service and pay him half of the back wages from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement.

( 4 ) AS against the impugned order, passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of second appeal under Section 48 (3) of the Act, but the petitioner without availing the said remedy, has filed this writ petition. The petitioner can well raise the grounds available to him against the impugned order in the second appeal. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite existence of alternative remedy, he is entitled to file writ petition, I am unable to accept this contention of the petitioner. There is no doubt that existence of alternative remedy is not a bar to the maintainability of the writ petition. But, a writ petition, despite existence of alternative remedy, can be entertained only if it is filed for enforcement of any of the fundamental lights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural ju