ORDER :

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“to issue an order, direction or a Writ or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the appointment of the 2nd Respondent is below the rank of State Labour Commissioner and contrary to the provision of Sub-Section 1 of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act consequently the order of the 2nd Respondent in 01/2016, dated : 30.10.2019 is without jurisdiction arbitrary, illegal, contrary to principles of natural justice and enforceable in law and grant such other relief or reliefs ….”.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief is that, petitioner is a partnership firm dealing with sale of bearings and tools. Respondent No.3 was employed in the shop and he retired from service of the petitioner shop on 11.11.2011. Respondent No.3’s account was settled with the petitioner and he is receiving pension from the Employees Provident Fund Organization as per the EPF Scheme, 1952.

3. Respondent No.3 got issued a legal notice, dated 10.02.2016 claiming Rs.5,44,945/- alleging that his services were terminated by oral statement and petitioner stopped payment of wages after September, 2015. Reply notice was sent on behalf of petitioner to respondent No.3’s counsel denying various allegations made by respondent No.3 and further contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to respondent No.3. It was also asserted that Respondent No.3 retired from the service of the petitioner on 11.11.2011 and thereafter he was not employed by the petitioner. Respondent No.3 has been drawing pension from EPF organization ever since he retired from the service. Respondent No.3 provided consultancy service to the petitioner after his retirement and there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.3 subsequent to his retirement.

4. Respondent No.3 filed application before respondent No.2 along with petition in M.P.No.1 of 2016 to condone the delay of 23 months in filing the MW case. Petitioner filed counter contending that the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts and that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The petitioner also contended in the said counter that each day’s delay of 690 days was not explained. Respondent No.2 by order, dated 03.10.2016 allowed M.P.No.1 of 2016 by condoning the delay and respondent No.2 without having jurisdiction passed the impugned order imposing penalty of Rs.1,36,368/-, which is two times the compensation, only basing on presumptions and assumptions and thus, filed the writ petition.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter and contended interalia that 2nd respondent is competent authority to adjudicate upon the claims filed under Section 20 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). As per Section 20 of the Act, respondent No.2 has power to condone the delay in filing claim application when sufficient cause is shown beyond the stipulated period. Respondent No.2 is the competent authority to adjudicate upon the Claims filed under Section 20 of the Act and also in view of G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 06.06.2008, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, notifying respondent No.2 as the Competent Authority to adjudicate upon the Claims filed under Section 20 of the Act. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

6. Heard Sri Koka Satayanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

7. Learned counsel while reiterating the contentions in the writ affidavit, submits that respondent No.3 retired from service and he is getting pension from EPF organization; that he was engaged as an advisor on Honorarium basis but not on salary base and the said contract is an oral one and later filed complaint under Section 20 of the Act.

8. Learned counsel would further submit that as per Section 20 of the Act, the appropriate Governm