APHC010092182005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7443 of 2005 Bench Sr.No:-6 [3506] Nakka Nokalu ...Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Labour 2 Others and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: V SUDHAKAR REDDY Advocate for Respondent: GP FOR LABOUR CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 17th February 2026 The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.01.2005 passed by the 1st respondent, to the extent of disallowing the claim of service compensation made in pursuance to the Section 47(3) of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for brevity “Act, 1988”), to be illegal and unconstitutional. 2 2. The petitioner is stated to have worked as Secretary with 3rd respondent Society and retired from service on 31.03.2003. He had made claim for service compensation as well as leave encashment, which came to be rejected by the 3rd respondent. Eventually, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 50 of the Act,1988, before the 2nd respondent, claiming for aforesaid service compensation and leave encashment, and by order dated 01.02.2004 the claim has been allowed. However, the 3rd respondent preferred appeal under Section 53 before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent insofar as grant of leave encashment; however, disallowed the claim of service compensation by placing reliance on the judgment referred to by this Court in Srinivasa Resorts Limited and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors 1. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner has put in more than 20 years of service, the embargo 1 2001 SCC OnLine AP 1038 3 under Section 47(3) of the Act, that one should have completed the minimum of one year of service, would not come in the way to awarding service compensation and the 1st respondent, by misconstruing the purport of judgment referred to supra, has disallowed the claim of service compensation. 5. The petitioner had made claim for service compensation sourcing to 47(3) of the Act. Full Bench of this Court, in the judgment referred to supra, struck down Section 47(3) and 47(4) of the Act and eventually, the said judgment came to be confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel and Towers Employees and Workers Union Vs. Srinivasa Resorts Ltd. and Ors2. In sum and substance, the Hon’ble Apex Court has come to conclusion that the State was not competent to make any law with respect to service compensation when field was already occupied by the Central enactment, which envisaged payment of gratuity. 6. In that view of the matter, claim made by the petitioner for service compensation lacks statutory backing. Hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition 2 2009 5 SCC 342 4 dismissed. However, the petitioner is entitled to pursue his other remedies, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 17.02.2026 ANS 5 128 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7443 of 2005 Date: 17.02.2026 ANS