P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Srinivas Nagaraj and Mrs. Saraswathi representing the respective parties. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition was filed for a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the first respondent in Endt. No. C. D. Dis. 4364/96, dated 2-10-1996, and the consequential order of the second respondent in S. E. Case NO. 4/94, dated 21-4-1995, as illegal and arbitrary and for other suitable order as this court deems fit. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief are as follows:a theatre represented by its managing partner filed this writ petition. The third respondent-workman filed an appeal before the second respondent stating that he was appointed as Gate-keeper under the management of the petitioner on 4-4-1975 and that when he requested the petitioner to pay the minimum wages, overtime wages, bonus and other benefits, the petitioner orally terminated his services from 13-9-1993, and sought for his reinstatement into service with back wages. It is also stated that the petitioner filed a detailed counter therein denying all the allegations and taking a stand that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner-management and the third respondent-workman and hence the second respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The third respondent, in support of his case, examined himself as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. A. 1 to A. 3. The petitioner, on his behalf, examined R. W. 1 and marked Exs. R. 1 to R. 3. However, the second respondent arrived at a conclusion that he had jurisdiction to decide the dispute; that there was relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the third respondent and that the termination of the services of the third respondent without following the procedure contemplated under Section 47 (1) of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act was not sustainable, and directed the petitioner to reinstate the third respondent with continuity of service and back wages. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the second respondent, the petitioner carried the matter in second appeal to the first respondent. During the pendency of the appeal before the second respondent, the managing partner suffered a major heart attack and he was advised complete bed rest for a period of two months. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the second respondent, the petitioner carried the matter in second appeal to the first respondent. During the pendency of the appeal before the second respondent, the managing partner suffered a major heart attack and he was advised complete bed rest for a period of two months. Since his condition did not improve, he was taken to Madras for further treatment and he was asked to stay at Madras. Subsequent thereto, when he went to Guntur, he was informed that the second respondent allowed the appeal filed by the third respondent. Immediately the petitioner preferred a second appeal to the first respondent with an application for condonation of delay. The first respondent returned the appeal with an endorsement in Endt. C. N. Dis. 4364/96, dated 2-10-1996, and signed it on 30-10-1996 holding that the second appeal should be filed within 30 days and without depositing the wages in time the appeal could not be entertained under proviso (2) to Section 48 (3) of the A. P. Shops and Establishment Act 1988 (for short "the Act" ). It is also further stated that though a specific request was made that his application for condonation of delay should be considered the same was not considered. No doubt, several allegations were made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition touching the merits of the matter which need not be discussed for the purpose of deciding the issue in this writ petition. ( 5 ) IT is brought to my notice that on 30-12-1998 this court passed an interim order of stay in W. P. M. P. No. 34431 of 1996 on condition of the petitioner depositing the entire award amount giving liberty to the third respondent to withdraw half of that amount. The third respondent accordingly withdrew half of the deposited amount. ( 6 ) THE third respondent filed counter-affidavit along with an application for vacating the interim order of stay. The third respondent accordingly withdrew half of the deposited amount. ( 6 ) THE third respondent filed counter-affidavit along with an application for vacating the interim order of stay. In the counter-affidavit, the third respondent took the stand that he worked as Gate-keeper from 4-4-1975 under the management of the petitioner; that his services were illegally terminated by an oral order, dated 13-9-1993; though he had been approaching the management of the petitioner there was no reply and therefore the Authority under the Act passed the order, dated 21-4-1995, in SE Case No. 4/1994 directing the management of the petitioner to reinstate the third respondent-workman into service as Gate-keeper with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement into service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent after expiry of the period of limitation and the first respondent rejected the same. It is also stated that the appellate authority under the Act in SE Case No. 4/94 passed the order after taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration. It is also stated that the management deposited an amount of Rs. 12,000. 00 and the third respondent was permitted to withdraw only Rs. 6,000/- and that thereafter no amounts had been deposited and no wages are being paid to the third respondent as contemplated under the Act. ( 7 ) SRI Srinivas Nagaraj, learned counsel representing the petitioner, had confined his submission only to the limited extent that the non-consideration of the application for condonation of delay by the first respondent is not sustainable in law. ( 8 ) AS can be seen from the relief prayed for in this writ petition, the prayer appears to be otherwise. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Section 48 (3) of the Act and submitted that though there is no specific provision incorporated relating to condonation of delay the authority is having power to deal with an application for condonation of delay and that the action of the first respondent is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to Rule 21 of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Rules, 1990. ( 9 ) MRS. Saraswathi, on the contrary, had contended that the petitioner questioned the order bearing No. Endt. C. N. Dis. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to Rule 21 of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Rules, 1990. ( 9 ) MRS. Saraswathi, on the contrary, had contended that the petitioner questioned the order bearing No. Endt. C. N. Dis. 4364/96, dated 2-10-1996, of the first respondent wherein the second appeal was returned observing that the second appeal should be filed within 30 days and that without depositing the back wages in time the appeal could not be entertained under the second proviso to Section 4 and 3 of the Act, and also the order of the second respondent, dated 21-4-1995, in SE Case No. 4/94. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon DIST. CO-OP. CENTRAL BANK LTD. ELURU v. STATE OF A. P. wherein the first proviso to Section 48 (3)of the Act was held to be not unconstitutional. The learned counsel for the third respondent has submitted that though the interim direction was complied with, for subsequent period wages are not being paid and the third respondent was not reinstated into service and that only with a view to delay the matter further the petitioner had thought of filing this writ petition and there are no bona fides in this writ petition. ( 10 ) SECTION 48 (3) of the Act reads:"against any decision of the authority under sub-section (2), a second appeal shall lie to such authority as may be notified by the Government within thirty days from the date of communication of the decision and the decision of such authority on such appeal shall be final and binding on both the employer and the employee and shall be given effect to within such time as may be specified in the order of that Authority: 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 sub-section (2) or the amount of compensation ordered as the case may be: Provided further that if the second appeal is against the order of reinstatement given by the appellate authority under sub-section (2), the employee shall be entitled to wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings before the appellate authority. " ( 11 ) SECTION 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Rules, 1990 (for short "the Rules") deals with appeals. " ( 11 ) SECTION 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Rules, 1990 (for short "the Rules") deals with appeals. It is not in dispute that there is no specific provision incorporated relating to condonation of delay under the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though there is no such specific provision under the Act, the authority can exercise the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in presenting the appeal and places strong reliance upon the decision in M. K. GOYAL v. EX. OFFICIO, JOINT SECRETARY AND ADDITIONAL COMMR wherein, a Division Bench of this court, while dealing with condonation of delay in presenting the appeals under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act in a similar situation, arrived at the conclusion, following the decision in MUKRI GOPALANv. C. P. ABOOBACKER, that the appellate authority can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is no doubt true that so far as the constitutional authority of the first proviso to Section 48 (3) of the Act is concerned, the same was upheld in DIST. CO-OP. CENTRAL BANK LTD. , ELURU v. STATE OF A. P. In the present case, in pursuance of the interim order the award amount was deposited and half of that amount was withdrawn by the third respondent. But, however, the third respondent did not get the relief of reinstatement. It is also brought to my notice that for the subsequent period the petitioner is also not paying the wages to the third respondent. ( 12 ) IN the light of the above facts and circumstances, inasmuch as it had been specifically averred in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the appeal was presented along with an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority should have considered the aspect of condonation of delay also while returning the appeal for compliance of other conditions under the Act. This course was however not adopted and this is the only point that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This course was however not adopted and this is the only point that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, since it is brought to my notice that the rest of the amount was not permitted to be withdrawn by the third respondent, the third respondent is permitted to withdraw the rest of the amount also which had been deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order referred to supra. Apart from it, the Act being beneficial piece of legislation, the management of the petitioner cannot be given upper hand. The third respondent-workman was in fact successful and a detailed order was passed holding that there was relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the third respondent. Since the petitioner is interested in further prosecuting the litigation i. e. consideration of the application for condonation of delay along with the appeal, I feel it just that in the facts and circumstances of the case a direction be issued to the first respondent to consider the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay and pass appropriate orders in this regard. But, however, the first respondent will also be at liberty to strictly comply with the other conditions specified by the Act. It is also further directed that the petitioner shall deposit the rest of the wages for the subsequent period before the first respondent as the petitioner is interested in further prosecuting the appeal as against the third respondent. ( 13 ) WITH the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.