ORDER The petitioner in W.P.Nos. 27390 and 28472 of 2008 is a Co-operative Credit Society Limited. It employed various persons, including the 151 respondent, in each of the writ petitions (Nos.27390 and 28472 of 2008). On finding that the expenditure incurred for payment of salaries to them exceeded the limits stipulated under Section 116-C of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'), the petitioner removed the employees(for short 'the respondents') from service on 19-7-2002. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents and another similarly situated person filed W.P.No. 13831 of 2002 and batch. Initially, an order of interim suspension was passed in their favour. The petitioner filed an application for vacating the interim orders. On 2-8-2002, the interim order was vacated. Writ Appeal Nos. 1421 of 2002 and batch were filed. The writ appeals were disposed of on 13-10-2002, without disturbing the order under appeal, but leaving it open to the respondents to make representation to the petitioner. Ultimately the writ petitions were also disposed of on 18-11-2002 in similar terms. 2. The respondents accordingly made representations to the petitioner. An order of fresh appointment was issued on 21-1-2003, on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,200/- per month. However, through a subsequent resolution dated 29-3-2003, the petitioner took the view that the appointments of the respondents is contrary to Section 116-C of the Act, and accordingly terminated their services. 3. The respondents approached the Authority under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 (sic. 1988) (for short 'the Shops Act'). Through similar orders dated 29-11-2007, the Authority allowed the cases and directed reinstatement of the respondents with 50% of back wages. I he petitioner filed Second Appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appeals were dismissed on 19-11-2008. The petitioner filed two writ petitions referred to above Claiming balance of 50% back wages and other relief, the respondents i.e., employees lied W.P.Nos. 5490 and 5494 of 2009. 4. Smt. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the respondents was found to be contrary to Section 116-C of the Act, and in that view of the matter, there was no alternative for the petitioner, except to terminate their services. 5490 and 5494 of 2009. 4. Smt. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the respondents was found to be contrary to Section 116-C of the Act, and in that view of the matter, there was no alternative for the petitioner, except to terminate their services. She contends that the necessity to issue notice contemplated under Section 47 of the Shops Act did not arise, on account of the fact that the respondents were not in service for a period of six months from the date of their subsequent fresh appointments. Learned counsel submits that the orders passed by the Authorities under the Shops Act cannot be sustained in law, and that writ petitions filed by the respondents deserve to be dismissed. 5. Sri K.V.L. Narasimhar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that, for all practical purposes, the appointments of the respondents made on 21-1-2003 are a continuation of their earlier service, and the objection, with reference to Section 47 of the Shops Act, does not merit consideration. He further submits that even if the continuance of the respondents results in violation of Section 116-C of the Act, the petitioner was under obligation to issue notice, or pay salary in lieu thereof. According to him, the Authorities under the Shops Act ought to have awarded full back wages. 6. The only basis on which the petitioner terminated the services of the respondents was that the payment of salary to them exceeded the limits, stipulated under Section 116-C of the Act. On earlier occasion, similar step was taken. The respondents approached this Court by filing writ petitions. The orders of termination were not interfered with, and consequent on the vacation of interim orders, the respc'1dents stood removed from service and relieved of duties. 7. The respondents made an attempt to impress this Court, that the subsequent appointments made on 21-1-2003 are in the form of reinstatement. The orders of appointment are in Telugu, and except that the respondents used the words "reinstatement", in the translations, there is nothing to suggest that it was a case of reinstatement. 8. The question of reinstating an employee would arise, when an order of suspension is withdrawn by the employer. Another instance is where an order of removal is set aside by an Appellate Authority, or a Court of Law. 8. The question of reinstating an employee would arise, when an order of suspension is withdrawn by the employer. Another instance is where an order of removal is set aside by an Appellate Authority, or a Court of Law. In the case on hand, no such development has taken place. The orders of termination dated 19-07-2002, passed against the respondents, remained intact, and though in term order was granted initially, it was vacated thereafter. Hence, there was no occasion for the petitioner to reinstate the respondents. On the other hand, in clear and categorical terms, the petitioner stated in the orders dated 21-1-2003, that the respondents are appointed afresh, with effect from the date of the order, that too, on a reduced consolidated pay. 9. The question as to whether the respondents were appointed afresh, on 21-1-2003, or were reinstated into service; assumes significance, from the point of view of the application of Section 47 of the Shops Act, to their cases. The provision reads as under: "Section 47: Conditions for terminating the services of an employee, payment of service compensation for termination, retirement, resignation, disablement, etc., and payment of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension:- (1) No employer shall, without a reasonable cause, terminate the service of an employee who has been in his employment continuously for a period of not less than six months without giving such employee at least one month's notice in writing or wages in lieu thereof and in respect of an employee who has been in his employment continuously for the period of not less than one year, a service compensation amounting to fifteen days average wages for each year of continuous employment: Provided that every termination shall be made by the employer in writing and a copy of such termination order shall be furnished to the inspector having jurisdiction over the area I within three days of such termination".(other part of the section is not necessary for this case) 10. It is a matter of record that the respondents were not issued any show cause notice, nor were they paid salary, in lieu thereof. However, that necessity would have arisen, if only the respondents have put in service of not less than six months from the date of appointment. The termination in their services occurred within three months from the date of their fresh appointment. However, that necessity would have arisen, if only the respondents have put in service of not less than six months from the date of appointment. The termination in their services occurred within three months from the date of their fresh appointment. The only ground on which the Authorities under the Shops Ad interfered with the orders of termination was, that they were not preceded by a notice nor any compensation in lieu thereof, was paid. Once it emerges that Section 47 of the Shops Act has no application to the facts a the case, the very basis for the respondent to approach the Authority, ceases to ex is The Authority under the Shops Act do not get jurisdiction to entertain the claim an employee, under Section 47 thereof unless he has put in six months of service. At any rate, the requirement as to issuance of notice or pay salary in lieu of notice does not arise. 11. On this short ground, the Write Petition Nos. 27390 and 28472 of 2008 and allowed, and the orders challenged therein are set aside. W.P.Nos. 5490 and 5494 of 2009 are dismissed. It is, however, directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to recover the amount paid to the respondents, towards wages, during the pendency of the writ petitions. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.