S. R. NAYAK, J, J. ( 1 ) :both the writ appeals are directed against the common judgment and order of the learned single judge dated 11-2-2002 passed in Writ petition No. 8129 of 1996 and Writ Petition no. 18379 of 1994. Writ Appeal No. 820 of 2002 is filed by the Management of hotel Dwaraka Deluxe whereas Writ Appeal no. 1470 of 2002 is by M/s Hotel Dwaraka palace. Hotel Dwaraka Deluxe is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8129 of 1996 whereas M/s. Hotel Dwaraka Palace is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18379 of 1994 and in the said writ petitions the following identical relief was sought: petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or a writ particularly one in the nature of mandamus, declaring that the 1st respondent in exercising the power under section 48 of the A. P. Shops and establishments Act to issue directions to the 21st Metropolitan Magistrate to recover amount from the petitioner in respect to the appeal SE. No. 572/89, dated 3-3-1992 as illegal, void and without jurisdiction. ( 2 ) THE learned single Judge clubbed the aforementioned two writ petitions along with another writ petition being Writ Petition no. 9650 of 1996 filed by Hotel Dwaraka paradise and by the common order dismissed all the writ petitions. The background facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions be noted briefly as under: ( 3 ) THERE was a hotel called Hotel dwaraka managed by a partnership firm and the 2nd respondent viz. , S. Narasinga raju was an employee of the said Hotel. It appears that the said Narasinga Raju joined the service of the Hotel Dwaraka in the year 1974 and while serving as an employee of the hotel the management of the said hotel terminated his services with effect from 20-8-1989. Narasinga Raju being aggrieved by the said action of the Management of hotel Dwaraka preferred an appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short the Act ). The said appeal was allowed by the appellate authority viz. Narasinga Raju being aggrieved by the said action of the Management of hotel Dwaraka preferred an appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short the Act ). The said appeal was allowed by the appellate authority viz. , the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, hyderabad Circle HI by his award dated 3-3-1992 directing reinstatement of narasinga Raju into service with backwages and continuity of service. ( 4 ) WHEN the matter stood thus, according to the writ petitioners the 1st respondent directed the 21st Metropolitan magistrate to recover amount from the managements of the three hotels - Dwaraka deluxe, Dwaraka Palace and Dwaraka paradise towards the outstanding dues in terms of the award dated 3-3-1992. At that stage the Management of Hotel Dwaraka palace preferred Writ Petition No. 18379 of 1994 seeking declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in directing the learned 21st Metropolitan Magistrate to recover the outstanding sum of money as illegal and without jurisdiction. Subsequently similar writ petitions - Writ Petition nos. 8129 of 1996 and 9650 of 1996 came to be filed by the Managements of hotel dwaraka Deluxe and Hotel Dwaraka paradise. When these writ petitions were pending, in all these writ petitions interim orders were passed directing stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the direction issued by the 1st respondent to the 21st Metropolitan Magistrate. In the meanwhile it appears that Narasinga Raju filed an application dated 1-1-1996 purported to be under Section 48 (5) of the Act for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,736/- towards the outstanding dues. In the said application narasinga Raju stated that the earlier management of Hotel Dwaraka was subsequently divided into three entities and they have been running the 3 Hotels viz. , hotel Dwaraka Deluxe, Dwaraka Paradise and Hotel Dwaraka Palace and, therefore, these three hotels being successors-in- interest of the original Management of Hotel dwaraka are liable to satisfy the terms of the award. On that basis the 1st respondent issued show-cause notice dated 29-1-1996. On receipt of the said notice by the three hotels - Dwaraka Deluxe, Dwaraka Paradise and Dwaraka Palace submitted their reply to the show cause notice. On that basis the 1st respondent issued show-cause notice dated 29-1-1996. On receipt of the said notice by the three hotels - Dwaraka Deluxe, Dwaraka Paradise and Dwaraka Palace submitted their reply to the show cause notice. In the reply submitted by the managements of these three hotels, among other things, it was contended that they are not the successors- in-interest of the original Hotel Dwaraka and, therefore, they could not be saddled with the liability of satisfying the terms of the award passed by the appellate authority under Section 48 of the Act. It was also contended by these managements that narasinga Raju was not at all their employee at any point of time. ( 5 ) THE learned single Judge having opined that the record produced by the learned Government Pleader discloses that the erstwhile Management of Hotel Dwaraka includes the managements of the three hotels - Dwaraka Deluxe, Dwaraka Palace and dwaraka Paradise also, dismissed the writ petitions by the order impugned in these writ appeals. ( 6 ) WE have heard Sri C. B. Rammohan Reddy and Sri Koka satyanarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that though it was specifically denied in the reply submitted to the show-cause notice that the managements of these hotels are not the successors-in-interest of the erstwhile Hotel dwaraka and there is no relationship of employer and employee between these managements and Narasinga Raju, the learned single Judge has not dealt with that precise contention arraigned in the replies. The learned Counsel contends that there is no material whatsoever to fasten the liability flowing from the award passed by the appellate authority under Section 48 of the act, dated 3-3-1992 on the managements of these three hotels. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of the learned single Judge. ( 8 ) FROM the pleadings of the parties what emerges is a serious dispute between the contesting parties as to whether the managements of these three hotels could be regarded as the successors-in-interest of the Management of Hotel Dwaraka in terms of law. ( 8 ) FROM the pleadings of the parties what emerges is a serious dispute between the contesting parties as to whether the managements of these three hotels could be regarded as the successors-in-interest of the Management of Hotel Dwaraka in terms of law. It is trite that only in the event of the appellate authority or any other competent authority under the Act holding that the managements of these three hotels are the successors-in-interest of the erstwhile defunct firm - Management of hotel Dwaraka, fastening the liability flowing from the award of the appellate authority dated 3-3-1992 on these managements should arise. Therefore, in our considered opinion the Assistant Commissioner of Labour III, hyderabad before directing recovery of outstanding dues in terms of the award dated 3-3-1992 ought to have given a reasonable opportunity to the managements of these three hotels and it is necessary for the assistant Commissioner of Labour III, in the first instance to decide whether these managements could be in law regarded as successors-in-interest of the defunct management of Hotel Dwaraka. Without deciding that basic question the Assistant commissioner of Labour III would not be justified in straightaway directing recovery of the outstanding dues from the petitioners managements. In that view of the matter, with regards, we shall state that the learned single Judge is not justified in dismissing the writ petitions. ( 9 ) IN the result, we allow these writ appeals and set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 11-2-2002 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 8129 of 1996 and 18379 of 1994 only and dispose of those writ petitions directing the 1st respondent-Assistant commissioner of Labour III, Hyderabad to consider the replies submitted by the petitioners managements to the show-cause notice dated 29-1-1996 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that unless the Assistant Commissioner of labour III considers the objections raised by the petitioners managements in their replies and passes appropriate orders as directed above, no coercive steps should be taken to recover the outstanding dues in pursuance of the show-cause notice dated 29-1-1996.