ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be the employee of Respondent No.4 company, joined on offer letter dated 17.06.2017, as Head of Sales with 18,00,000/- + Rs.3,00,000/- variable pay basis. It is stated, from April 2019, Respondent No.4 arbitrarily, without any reason and cause, changed the variable component payment from Rs.3 lacs to 4% of the sales generated by him and in addition, also committed that if the applicant achieves the target above the set target, then commission of 8% was to be paid to him, which was agreed. During this period, it is stated, petitioner No.1 has brought a considerable revenue leading to crores of rupees to the company in the form of sale deals. His salary due to excellent performance was increased from Rs.18 lacs to Rs.25 lacs and later to Rs.30 lacs per annum from January 2020; applicant’s varibale pay wages was being paid with a lag of one year which is completely illegal under the applicable laws of Telangana State under Section 38 of Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. Hence, petitioner No.1 is stated to have filed the Application for recovery of wages on 21.06.2024 and the condone delay Application on 26.06.2024 registered as Case S&E I.A. No. 14 of 2024 and Petitioner No. 2 Application is filed as Case S&E No., 9 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Authority appointed under Section 50 of the 1988 Act i.e. the Court of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District. 1.1. Respondent No. 1 is following the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (CPC) while conducting the proceedings, despite being a quasi-judicial body and not following the procedure for proceedings as laid down in the 1988 Act. The said Act is special law, dealing with the Employment Rights of the private employees working in Shops and Establishments in Telangana State, and it is well -ettled law that provisions of the Special law prevails over the general law in conducting the Court proceedings while deciding the matters before it for any dispute arising for violations of the provisions of the Act. 1.2. 1.2. In Case No. S&E IA 14 of 2024 and Case S&E 9 of 2024, notice was issued to the respondent party on 02.07.2024, with hearing date as 18.07.2024 by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District (ACL RRDI), yet, respondent did not appear on the said date; the cases underwent several adjournments up to 10.09.2024. This robotic grant to adjournments, according to petitioners, is contrary to the law laid down in 1988 Act and also the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Yashpal Jain vs. Sushila Devi. Yet, the Authority is following the conventional CPC provisions and diluting the very purpose of the 1988 Act. It is also stated, Petitioner No. 2 also filed Writ Petition No. 7904 of 2024 praying the Court to declare "Bonded Labour by private Employment" as illegal. 1.3. It is reiterated that ACL RRD is following the provisions of the conventional Civil Procedure Code 1908 (CPC) while conducting the proceedings to adjudicate matters under the 1988 Act. This is contrary to the well-settled law and also illegal and violation of Section 50 of the 1988 Act read with Rule 25 of the 1990 Rules in which the procedure to deal with the Applications before the Authority for Recovery of wages, etcetera are already outlined. Even for termination of services related Appeal, Respondent No. 1 is required to follow summary trial procedure as outlined in Section 48 of 1988 Act read with Rule 21 of 1990 Rules.Therefore, when employment termination itself is to be decided as per summary trial procedure, recovery of wages Applications being decided contrary to procedure in Rule 25 is vehemently wrong on the part of the Respondent No. 1. 1.4. Petitioners are therefore, stated to have submitted representations via e mail to Respondents 3 and 4, bringing this issue to their notice to take appropriate action, but however, no action was taken. The said non-compliance of 1990 Rules is defeating the very purpose of the 1988 Act. It is brought to the notice of this Court the judgment in Yashpal Jain ’s case (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the procedure laid down in special law will prevail over general law. The said non-compliance of 1990 Rules is defeating the very purpose of the 1988 Act. It is brought to the notice of this Court the judgment in Yashpal Jain ’s case (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the procedure laid down in special law will prevail over general law. The State Shops and Establishments Act 1988 being a special law which was enacted to protect the private employees working in the Shops, Information Technology Sectors and such other establishments had enacted the said legislation to be able to provide speedy Justice to the Employees under the provisions of the 1988 Act. It is also stated, even CPC amended through Act 104 of 1976, w.e.f. 01.02.1977 mandated dealing with the Applications of such nature arising for recovery of dues through contract, under Order 37, Rule (2) (b) (i) and arising out of written contract. Hence, Respondent No. 1 and all such other Authorities under the 1988 Act are duty-bound to follow "summary procedure" in deciding the Application before them and not to follow the convention CPC procedures, causing immense delay in doing Justice to the Applications before them. 1.5. Petitioner No. 1 contends that he kept following up with the respondent company for his dues, from November 2022 to August 2023, before filing the Application with the Authority. On that reason alone, the IA should be allowed and main case should be heard and decided on merits; and Petitioner No.2’s case should be heard finally and decided on merits, after submission of counter by the responding company in S&E Case No. 09 of 2024. According to petitioners, the official Respondents have a solemn duty to ensure that Labour in Telangana State are protected from unfair, illegal and unfair labour practices and to uphold Constitutional Norms in the State. Yet, they have not acted upon the representations of petitioners. RTI Application dated 26.08.2024 was filed with the office of the Commissioner of Labour-Telangana, seeking documents and information about procedure being followed in the Courts of the Authority under Section 50 of the 1988 Act. The said RTI has only been transferred so far vide letter dated 10.09.2024. Hence, the Writ Petition. 2. RTI Application dated 26.08.2024 was filed with the office of the Commissioner of Labour-Telangana, seeking documents and information about procedure being followed in the Courts of the Authority under Section 50 of the 1988 Act. The said RTI has only been transferred so far vide letter dated 10.09.2024. Hence, the Writ Petition. 2. Respondent No.1, who is conducting the quasi- judicial proceedings filed by Petitioners before the Authority Appointed under Section 50 of the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act (in short Shop Act) filed counter stating that both the petitioners had grievance with Respondent No.5 in respect of their full and final settlement. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District was appointed as Authority under Section 48 of the Act to hear and decide the Appeals arising out of termination of services, and under Section 50 to hear and decide the claims relating to wages, etcetera. Section 55 deals with the power of Authority appointed under Section 50 to adopt adjudication procedure. In view of the above Section, the Authority under Section 50 has to follow certain procedure. This legal aspect alone may be sufficient to dismiss the Writ Petition as not maintainable. 2.1. Under Section 73, Exemption Clause is provided. Petitioner No.1 worked as “Head of Sales,” and Petitioner No.2 worked as “Automation Lead”, and both of them drew more than Rs.1600/- salary per month and having control over the affairs of their Department respectively. As per the Supreme Court guidelines, the Authority has to examine whether the employee comes under the purview of the Position of Management or not, without adjudicating the same the authority cannot decide the jurisdictional issue under Exemption clause. For this purpose, petitioners have to undergo trial and to enter witness box. 2.2. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Johri Mal, 2004 (4) SCC 714 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that where a statutory authority operates within the confines of its statutory duties, the Court should exercise restraint in intervening unless there is a clear violation of procedural or legal standards. This principle along with the approach taken by the Labour Department ensures compliance with procedural requirements in all adjudicative matters. 2.3. Respondent No.1 states that Petitioners, after resignation from the unofficial respondent institution, instead of claiming full and final settlement, after a lapse of 380 days claiming delayed payment of wages. This principle along with the approach taken by the Labour Department ensures compliance with procedural requirements in all adjudicative matters. 2.3. Respondent No.1 states that Petitioners, after resignation from the unofficial respondent institution, instead of claiming full and final settlement, after a lapse of 380 days claiming delayed payment of wages. Even some of the components claimed under the head of Wages does not form part of wages as defined in section 2(23) of the S&E Act. Further, Petitioners mis-understood the meaning of summary trial and the Labour Legislations will come under specific legislative framework distinct from General Civil Procedure code, and the 1988 Act, provides their own mechanism which allow the labour laws to deal in flexible nature, i.e. adopting civil procedure as well as criminal procedures whenever necessitates, and to facilitates speedy disposal with free and fair solutions to both the employers and employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2009 (8) SCC 483 , observed that quasi-judicial authorities have discretion in providing their own procedures for fair disposal of the cases. 2.4. The Labour Department is committed to resolve disputes in a timely manner, and if any delay is attributed due to the complexity of issues and volume of cases, but not on negligence of the authorities nor on the procedural lapses. Petitioners’ allegations that the Authority is liberally granting adjournments is not true as all actions have been undertaken with adherence to statutory frameworks and no procedural breaches have been committed. The Authority would follow the procedure as per Sections 55 and 73 of the Act before passing any order under Section 50. The principle laid down in Yashpal jain’s case is for prompt adjudication but not to override the specific provisions in specialized statutes like the Shops & Establishments Act which provides flexibility in resolving labour disputes. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob Vs Radhakrishnan , AIR 1964 SC 477 clearly observed that Writ of Certiorari should be reserved for clear cases of Jurisdictional error, but not on procedural lapses within statutory bodies. In the above said circumstances, it is prayed that Writ Petition be dismissed as devoid of merits. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob Vs Radhakrishnan , AIR 1964 SC 477 clearly observed that Writ of Certiorari should be reserved for clear cases of Jurisdictional error, but not on procedural lapses within statutory bodies. In the above said circumstances, it is prayed that Writ Petition be dismissed as devoid of merits. 3. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.5 Organization, it is stated, the material allegations against them to the affect that they had taken time and delayed the quasi- judicial proceedings pending before Respondent No. 1 are totally false, baseless and untenable; they had filed counters within the minimum possible time in the given circumstances of the matters, after collecting requisite data from relevant sources and obtaining legal advices appropriately on the aspects of law related to the said matters. It is also stated, the procedure being followed by Respondent No.1 is in no way contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yashpal Jain ’s case. In fact the directions issued therein to the sub-ordinate judiciary with regard to the timelines stipulated under CPC are in no way connected to the case of petitioners. 3.1. Further the contention of petitioners that respondent sought to file counter even for the 'Condone delay application' - is against the very principles of natural justice, further evidences the mis-conception of the petitioners that 'delay of more than a year in filing application is natural & trivial and that the same should be condoned mechanically, without any counter. It is further stated, neither in S & E Act nor in the Rules thereunder prescribe that the proceedings before ACL should be in summary form. Even the objects and reasons of the Act, reproduced in para 14 does not contemplate summary procedure. The summary trial contemplated under Order 37 CPC does not apply to quasi-judicial proceedings. Even the same cannot be applied because, as and when there is substantial defense taken by respondents or triable issues are being presented, then the authority should take a judicial decision as to whether to grant leave to defend; and such judicial decision is much beyond the scope and adjudging capabilities of any quasi-judicial authority, and such responsibility will abundantly overburden the quasi- judicial authority and will lead to failure of intended justice system. 3.2. 3.2. The representations by the counsel for respondents, purportedly given to the Official Respondents categorically establishes that amendments to existing Rules under S & E Act, 1988 are proposed for adopting summary procedure; which evidences that admittedly there is no such law prevailing currently, stipulating or contemplating summary procedure for deciding issues before 1st respondent. While so, the present writ seeking certiorari on the grounds of violation of such non- existing law is in sheer abuse of process of constitutional remedies. Therefore, the Writ Petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri Vijay Gopal, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour for Respondent No.1 and Sri B. Pratap, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 5. A perusal of the material on record discloses that petitioner No.1 is stated to have filed the Application for recovery of wages on 21.06.2024 and the condone delay Application on 26.06.2024 registered as Case S&E I.A. No. 14 of 2024 and Petitioner No. 2 Application is filed as Case S&E No. 9 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Authority appointed under Section 50 of the 1988 Act i.e. the Court of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District. The main grievance of petitioners is that Respondent No. 1 being a quasi- judicial body is not following the procedure prescribed in the 1988 Act which is a special law dealing with the Employment Rights of the private employees working in Shops and Establishments in Telangana State. It is their case that the Authority is liberally granting adjournments and delaying the adjudication. It is settled law that provisions of the Special law prevails over the general law in conducting the Court proceedings while deciding the matters before it for any dispute arising for violations of the provisions of the Act. 6. On the other hand, Respondent No.1 states that the Labour Department is committed to resolve disputes in a timely manner, and if any delay is attributed, it is due to the complexity of issues and volume of cases, but not on negligence of the authorities nor on the procedural lapses. The Authority would follow the procedure as per Sections 55 and 73 of the Act before passing any order under Section 50. 7. The Authority would follow the procedure as per Sections 55 and 73 of the Act before passing any order under Section 50. 7. In view of the above respective contentions, this Court without going into merits of the matter, desires to dispose of the pending Applications before the Authority in a time-bound manner. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing Respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of S&E I.A.No. 14 of 2024 and S.E.No. 9 of 2024, in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, in two months from today. No costs. 9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.