ORDER : 1. The petitioner is challenging the order passed in S.A. No. 1 of 2012 dated 25.02.2014, confirming the order passed by the 2 nd respondent in S.A. No. 3 of 2010 dated 06.06.2011. 2. The petitioner had engaged the services of the 3 rd respondent as a Credit Officer, and the 3 rd respondent is said to have worked with the petitioner company from September 2006 to February 2008. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3 rd respondent left the services of the petitioner company on his own and did not report to duty with effect from March 2008. It is submitted that the 3 rd respondent approached the authority under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool, seeking a relief of declaring the alleged oral termination of his services as bad in law and for a further direction to reinstate him with continuity of service and back wages. The authority under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act had allowed S.A. No. 3 of 2010 by directing the petitioner to reinstate the 3 rd respondent with continuity of employment and back wages within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of that order. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority-cum- Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Section 48(3) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act. S.A. No. 1 of 2012, which was considered by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and directed the petitioner to implement the order of the lower authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of that order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 47 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case and that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour erred in holding that the procedure under Section 47(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act and the procedure laid down under Rule 20 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Rules, 1990 were not followed. 5. It is submitted that Section 47(1) and Rule 20 do not apply to the facts of this case. 5. It is submitted that Section 47(1) and Rule 20 do not apply to the facts of this case. It is submitted that Section 47(1) would have been pressed into service only if the petitioner had terminated the services of the 3 rd respondent. It is also submitted that the 3 rd respondent had voluntarily absconded from duty and, after a period of two (02) years, approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour seeking reinstatement. It is further submitted that the 3 rd respondent could not have approached the statutory authorities seeking reinstatement after a lapse of more than two years by relying on Section 47(1). 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent submits that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has passed a reasoned order after considering the evidence on behalf of the applicant as well as the evidence on behalf of the opposite party before it and has given findings of fact. It is submitted that the findings upheld by the appellate authority cannot be revisited by this Court, as the fact-finding exercise has already been completed and confirmed by the statutory authorities. 7. The 1 st respondent has also filed a counter stating that the petitioner had disengaged the 3 rd respondent without any reasonable cause and that the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Rules was also not followed. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent. Perused the record. 9. The short point for consideration is whether the petitioner has made out a case for interfering with the proceedings and orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent. Perused the record. 9. The short point for consideration is whether the petitioner has made out a case for interfering with the proceedings and orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Section 47(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act reads as follows: “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 within three days of such termination.” 10. The 2 nd respondent has given a finding that the petitioner had not followed the procedure laid down under Section 47(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 and Rule 20 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Rules, 1990. It was further found that the 3 rd respondent had not left the job voluntarily. The evidence of the witness on behalf of the petitioner appears to have been misinterpreted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, and the order passed by the 2 nd respondent is evidently based on presumptions, particularly that the 3 rd respondent had gone on leave with prior intimation to his superiors. Such a finding is not supported by any document or evidence as extracted in the order of the 2 nd respondent. 11. That apart, the 3 rd respondent has not stated as to on what date he approached the petitioner for reconsideration of his case for re-engagement after his alleged leave from 01.03.2008 to 10.03.2008. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had settled the dues payable to the 3 rd respondent. That being so the counter is also silent as to what prevented the 3 rd respondent from addressing a notice or communication seeking re-engagement after reporting into duty. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had settled the dues payable to the 3 rd respondent. That being so the counter is also silent as to what prevented the 3 rd respondent from addressing a notice or communication seeking re-engagement after reporting into duty. The 3 rd respondent remained silent for a period of two (02) years and thereafter approached the 2 nd respondent seeking reinstatement and back wages. To invoke the provisions of Section 47 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, the 3 rd respondent ought to have specified the date of termination, whether oral or written. In the absence of any such material, this Court is not inclined to entertain the claim of the 3 rd respondent as falling within the scope of Section 47(1) of the Act. 12. That apart, Rule 20 can be pressed into service when the employee is alleged to have committed misconduct. As such, the 2 nd respondent erred in passing the impugned order dated 06.06.2011, and the 1 st respondent equally erred in upholding the same by the impugned proceedings dated 25.02.2014. 13. On these considerations, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside. Considering the submission that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount in pursuance of the mandatory provision under Section 48(3) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, the amount so deposited shall be released to the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.