V KRISHNAN Vs. REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Mill Manager on 27.08.1968 in the 3rd respondent-Bank. Later, admittedly, he continued as a Junior Clerk when disciplinary proceedings were taken against him and he was compulsorily retired from service. The punishment imposed on him was challenged before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The Labour Court has, in I.D. No. 79 of 1997, found that the impugned punishment of compulsory retirement is not proper and hence, set it aside. The management was directed to reinstate the workman in service with 50% back-wages. The management obviously did not reinstate the workman, but challenged the Labour Court award before this Court, which culminated in Exhibit P2 judgment. In Exhibit P2, this court found that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and, hence, interfered with the award of the Labour Court insofar as setting aside the order of granting 50% back-wages. The reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court was, however, upheld. While the matter was pending before this Court, the workman attained the age of superannuation, i.e., on 31.08.2007.

(2.) Since the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, the petitioner sought for retirement benefits from the management. The management, by Exhibit P3, found that the petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits as on 22.03.1995. Exhibit P3 was again challenged before this Court. This Court found that the claim emanating from an adjudication made by the Labour Court has to be prosecuted under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Reserving such liberties, the matter was closed by Exhibit P4 judgment.

(3.) The petitioner then approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. By Exhibit P5, the said authority found that the last drawn salary of the applicant, as has been claimed by him, was Rs. 13,041. The management raised a challenge from Exhibit P5 which was allowed by Exhibit P6, modifying Exhibit P5 order. By Exhibit P6 the workman was found to be entitled to gratuity only on computation made with reference to the last drawn pay on the date of his termination. The petitioner challenges Exhibit P6 order of the Appellate Authority.