ORDER: The petitioner is P.Rayavaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited, P.Rayavaram. The first respondent was engaged by it on daily wages initially on 20.11.1998. Thereafter, he was being paid monthly salary of Rs.1,500/- with effect from 25.10.1999. It is stated that the officials of the co-operative department in the district found fault with the appointment of the first respondent and other similar employees on the ground that the appointment was not regular and that it is contrary to the provisions of Section 116-C of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, mentioning this and other reasons. The then Person In-charge of the petitioner passed an order dated 24.01.2003 terminating the services of the petitioner. A sum of Rs.8,270/- was paid towards one month's salary in lieu of notice and compensation at the rate of salary for 15 days for each year of service as per Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 (for short - 'the Shops Act'). 2. The first respondent approached the authority under Section 48 of the Shops Act, the second respondent, by filing A.P.S.E.No.1 of 2003 pleading that his services are terminated without notice to him and without any cause. His case was opposed by the petitioner. Through order dated 15.04.2003, the second respondent has set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the first respondent with back wages. The petitioner filed A.P.S.A.No.6 of 2003 before the Appellate Authority under the said enactment i.e. the third respondent. By order dated 15.09.2003, the third respondent modified the order passed by the second respondent by reducing the back wages to 50%. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the first respondent was served with notice he has not entered appearance. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Labour for respondents 2 and 3. 4. While terminating the services of the first respondent through order dated 24.01.2003, a specific reference was made to a Circular dated 31.10.2002 and a letter dated 16.01.2003 issued by the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Kakinada. It was mentioned that on finding that the appointment of the first respondent was irregular, the Divisional Cooperative Officer has even superseded the managing committee of the petitioner through circular dated 31.10.2002. It was mentioned that on finding that the appointment of the first respondent was irregular, the Divisional Cooperative Officer has even superseded the managing committee of the petitioner through circular dated 31.10.2002. It is also pointed out that the Divisional Cooperative Officer required the petitioner to terminate the services of the first respondent and report compliance. 5. The first respondent has filed a case before the second respondent by raising several grounds. In his order dated 15.04.2003, the second respondent virtually functioned as an apex authority in the co-operative department and went on discussing about various aspects. None of the observations made by him are referable to Section 47 of the Shops Act. 6. The jurisdiction conferred upon an authority under Section 48 of the Shops Act is restricted to verification as to whether the order of termination accords with Section 47 of that Act. Section 47 of the Shops Act is only to the effect that the order of termination shall not be passed without a reasonable cause. Another requirement is that the notice of one month or salary in lieu thereof, together with the compensation, calculated at the rate of salary for 15 days for each year of completed service must be paid. There is no denial of the fact that the second condition is complied with. 7. As regards, the first condition, the petitioner categorically stated that the appointment of the first respondent was found to be illegal and that the elected managing committee was superseded by stating that, as one of the reasons. Reference was made to the proceedings issued by the concerned authorities, almost with a threat of further action. When such is the case, it cannot be said that there was no reasonable cause or basis for the petitioner in terminating the services of the first respondent. Once a reason is cited, it was not at all competent for the second respondent to review the decisions taken by various authorities of the co-operative department. His approach is totally outside the scope of Section 47 of the Shops Act. The third respondent also not bestowed his attention to the reasons mentioned in the order of termination. In case the view taken by the authorities of the co-operative department was contrary to law, the forum to decide that, is elsewhere. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The third respondent also not bestowed his attention to the reasons mentioned in the order of termination. In case the view taken by the authorities of the co-operative department was contrary to law, the forum to decide that, is elsewhere. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. It is directed that in case any amounts were paid to the 1st respondent in compliance with the interim orders passed by this Court, they shall not be recovered. There shall be no order as to costs.