( 1 ) THE question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the learned single judge was right in directing the appellant to avail of the statutory appeal available to it under the provisions of Section 48 (3) of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE question that fell for consideration before the learned single Judge was as to whether the date of birth of the respondent was october 13, 1940 or October 13, 1943. ( 3 ) IT appears that by reason of a direction issued by the State Government holding that the date of birth of the workman is October 13, 1940, his services have been terminated. The workman, however, contends that his date of birth is October 13, 1943 and not October 13, 1940. ( 4 ) MR. Koka Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that such a question could not have been arisen for consideration before the appellate authority and in support of the said contention the learned counsel relied upon a division Bench of this Court reported in Allied sales Corporation v. Authority, A. P. Shops and establishments Act, 1990-II-LLJ-510 (AP ). ( 5 ) THERE cannot be any doubt whatsoever that where a competent authority decides a question wholly without jurisdiction, the Writ court may not direct the writ petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available under the statute, but in our opinion where a jurisdictional fact arises for consideration, appeal may be maintainable. As noticed hereinbefore, the question as to whether the action on the part of the appellant in terminating the workman on the ground that his date of birth is October 13, 1943 is correct or not essentially being a question of fact, an appeal shall be maintainable in terms of the provision of the Act. It is not a case where on the basis of the record, the Writ Court can come to a finding that the appellant lacks inherent jurisdiction. Termination of service of a workman by whatever means would attract the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act. Even obtaining resignation by coercion or threat may also amount to termination. It is not a case where on the basis of the record, the Writ Court can come to a finding that the appellant lacks inherent jurisdiction. Termination of service of a workman by whatever means would attract the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act. Even obtaining resignation by coercion or threat may also amount to termination. In this case, the employee contended that he is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation on the basis of the date of birth entered in his service register by the management itself. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that an appeal will be maintained in terms of the provisions of Section 48 (3) of the act and the appellant may avail of the same. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellant have to deposit the entire amount due to the workman and the workman may not be permitted to withdraw the same as he had already been directed to retire. ( 7 ) MR. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman submits that the order of termination is the result of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the workman. Such a question also comes within the purview of Section 48 of the Act. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that preferring an appeal might not be possible at this stage as the appeal became barred by limitation. The question as regards condonation of delay shall fall for consideration before the appellate authority and it would be open for the appellant to contend before the said authority that it could not prefer the appeal within the prescribed time as it was legally advised to the effect that a writ petition is maintainable. The appellant, in that regard, to the said extent, shall be entitled to raise the contention before the authority while praying the appellate authority for grant of stay. ( 9 ) SUBJECT to the aforementioned observations, the appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.