Judgment : The 3rd respondent by name Pakalapati Chandra Varma worked as Secretary in the petitioner society from 1989 to 1995. Earlier to that he was an employee of another society. He retired from service on 11.01.1995, on attaining the age of superannuation. He filed an application under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') before the 2nd respondent stating that he was not paid a) the salary from 01.12.1994 to 11.01.1995 b) gratuity for the services rendered by him from 27.07.1977 to 11.01.1995 c) provident fund, service compensation, leave salary and T.A. bills for three months. The petitioner herein filed a counter opposing the case. It questioned the very jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to entertain the claim, and made submissions on merits also. It was pleaded that it cannot be mutated with the liability to pay service benefits for the period, during which the 3rd respondent was not in service. Through order dated 24.07.1996, the 2nd respondent allowed the claim and awarded a sum of Rs.62,493/-. This included the wages for the period from 01.12.1994 to 11.01.1995, gratuity for the entire service of the 3rd respondent, leave salary of Rs.12,678/-and compensation of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner presented an appeal before the 1st respondent against the said order under Section 53(1) of the Act. An order of stay was granted by imposing condition. On the ground that the petitioner did not comply with the condition imposed in the order of stay, the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal through order dated 16.02.2001. Hence, the writ petition. The petitioner contends that the claim of the 3rd respondent for payment of gratuity and provident fund are not tenable before the 2nd respondent. It is further pleaded that the award of service compensation cannot be sustained, since the 3rd respondent was already paid salary. Other grounds are also urged. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit, opposing the writ petition. He states that being an employer, the petitioner society is under obligation to extend various benefits at the time of retirement and since it was found that such benefits were denied to him, the 2nd respondent has issued directions for payment of the same. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Section 51 of the Act confers power upon the record mentioned therein to adjudicate the claims pertaining to unauthorized deductions from the wages or delay in payment thereof. Though the petitioner raised an objection as to the very jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to entertain any claim against the Co-operative Society, such a plea is not available in view of the Section 77 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent was in service of the petitioner between 1989 and 1995 and earlier to that date he worked in different societies. The non-payment of salary from 01.12.1994 to 11.01.1995 was not denied. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent was employee of the petitioner society and wages were not paid for that period. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the 2nd respondent directing payment of salary for that period. So is the case with the leave salary. The 2nd respondent committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.39,090/-towards gratuity for the period from 27.07.1977 to 11.01.1995 and Rs.5,000/-towards service compensation. The Payment of Gratuity Act provides for the extension of benefit of gratuity on employees of the organizations covered by it, on retirement of the employees. If any dispute arises in relation to the payment or the quantum of gratuity, to an employee, proceedings are to be initiated before the Authority, constituted under the Act. Apart from that the 3rd respondent was in service of the petitioner only between 1989 and 1995. Unless there existed any enforceable order in favour of the 3rd respondent for payment of gratuity, there was no basis for the 2nd respondent in holding the petitioner liable to pay the gratuity for the period between 1977 and 1995. The expressions "service compensation" is employed under Section 51 of the Act itself, as an alternative to wages. In other words, wherever an employee was paid the emoluments otherwise than in the form of wages, the expressions "service compensation" would take the same into fold. The payment of wages, and service compensation, being one and the same, the question of payment of service compensation, in addition to salary, does not arise. In other words, wherever an employee was paid the emoluments otherwise than in the form of wages, the expressions "service compensation" would take the same into fold. The payment of wages, and service compensation, being one and the same, the question of payment of service compensation, in addition to salary, does not arise. Without observing this aspect, the 2nd respondent has proceeded to award service compensation of Rs.5,000/-, as well as salary for the period mentioned in the application. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed setting aside the order, dated 24.07.1996, through which a sum of Rs.39,090/-was awarded as gratuity and Rs.5000/-towards service compensation. It is, however, left open to the 3rd respondent to pursue the remedies available to him under the relevant provisions of law against the agency, which is under obligation to pay gratuity. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petition filed in the writ petition also stands disposed of.