Full Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner is an employer. He employed the 2nd respondent and thereafter terminated his services. Challenging the termination, the 2nd respondent filed SE No. 4 of 1993 before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent passed an order on 16-5-1994 holding that the termination of the 2nd respondent is illegal. He has also passed orders to the effect that the 2nd respondent shall be entitled to full back wages and compensation of Rs. 2,450/-, in lieu of reinstatement.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, which was numbered as SA No. 5 of 1994. On the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the amount as required under Section 48(3) of the Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), the 1st respondent rejected the appeal through order dated 29-10-1994. The petitioner challenges the same.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit supporting the order passed by the 1st respondent.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
5. The only question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner complied with the conditions stipulated under Section 48(3) of the Act while preferring the appeal against the order of the 3rd respondent.
6. Section 48(3) of the Act provides for a second appeal against the order passed under Section 48(2) of the Act. Proviso to Section 48(3) reads as under:
'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 subsection (2) or the amount of compensation ordered as the case may be.'
A reading of the proviso indicates that the appellant in the 2nd appeal, filed under Section 48(3), is required to deposit the amount of back wages as ordered by the appellate authority or the amount of compensation, as the case may be. This proviso contemplates a situation whereunder the authority under Section 48(2) of the Act, passes an order directing payment of back wages or compensation. A case of ordering payment of back wages as well as compensation is also not ruled out. The proviso to Section 48(3) requires deposit of amount of back wages or compensation as the case may be. From one point of view, it may appear that the legislation contemplated the authority under Section 48(2) to pass an order as to back wages or compensation, and not both. However, the situation where the authority passes an order as to back wages as well as compensation is not ruled out or prohibited.
7. As between the back wages and compensation that are ordered to be paid, the proviso requires deposit of any one of them and not both. That appears to be the only meaning that can be given to the proviso. If any peculiar case arises, which call for a different treatment, it is for the concerned legislature to provide for the same. However, as long as the provision remains the same, that needs to be given effect to as it is.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited the amount of compensation. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the 1st respondent that the petitioner ought to have deposited the back wages also cannot be sustained. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to take the 2nd appeal on record and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.