Benefit of public law remedy cannot be thwarted on technicalities.

The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on courier services with branches at various places. The second respondent, since deceased, on his termination from service approached the authorities under the provisions of the A.P.Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 seeking redressal of his grievance. Being a rollercoaster of litigation, it has eventually come to this Court in the form of a challenge laid by the company on the ground that the authorities under the Act do not have the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the plea of the employee, since he does not fall within the purview of employee as defined in Section 2(8) of the Act.

The facts, as pleaded by the petitioner, to the extent relevant, are that the deceased employee joined the service of the petitioner on 01.12.1992 as branch operation assistant. Eventually by 10.08.1998, the employee, having been promoted as the area operations executive, had been looking after five branches in the city of Hyderabad.

Holding that the employee committed serious misconduct taking advantage of his official position, on 28.02.2001 the company issued a preliminary show cause notice to the employee. Since the explanation submitted by the employee was not satisfactory, the company issued on 13.03.2001 another charge sheet-cum-suspension order detailing all the charges. Though the employee rendered an unconditional apology on 14.03.2001, as a matter of abundant caution, the company initiated disciplinary action, which resulted in the dismissal of the employee through an order, dated 23.10.2001, passed by the disciplinary authority of the company.

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, dated 23.10.2001, the employee approached the appropriate authority under section 48(1) of the Act, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, the first respondent in the writ petition by filing S.E.No.45 of 2001. The said first appellate authority allowed the application of the employee through an order, dated 31.04.2004, and directed the company to reinstate the employee. The company, in turn, aggrieved by the order of the primary authority, approached the second appellate authority under the Act, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad (T.Cs) by filing S.A.No.16 of 2004. When the matter was pending before the second appellate authority, the employee filed an application in I.A.No.03 of 2004 seeking permission from the said authority to withdraw the back wages of Rs.1,87,788/- which had been deposited by the company at the time of filing the second appeal. When it was denied through an order dated 27.01.2005, the employee approached this Court by filing W.P.No.25125 of 2006.

Pending the writ petition, on appreciation of the rival contentions, the second appellate authority, through an order dated 17.02.2007, set aside the order of the first appellate authority and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. On remand, the first appellate authority, on re-appreciation of the issue, once again allowed the application of the employee through an order, dated 18.01.2010.

As a result, even W.P.No.25125 of 2007 filed by the employee seeking the leave of the second appellate authority to withdraw the back wages was rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the said writ petition came to be closed through an order dated 11.10.2007 holding that no orders need be passed in view of the disposal of the main application itself before the second appellate authority. It is brought on record that pending the second appeal, the employee died on 17.07.2008. Consequently, his wife and minor daughter, being the legal heirs and successors, were brought on record.

At that stage, the company approached this court by filing the present writ petition holding that the first appellate authority does not have the necessary inherent jurisdiction to entertain the plea of the employee, who does not fall within the provisions of the Act.

Based on the above facts, Ms. G. Sudha, the learned counsel