FIBRE FOAM P LTD Vs. KANNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent 1 and 2 in this case were employees of the petitioner, which is a firm. The petitioner issued Exts. P2 and P3 dated 13th November 1974 retiring respondents 1 and 2 from service on the ground that they have exceeded the age of 58 years. Respondents 1 and 2 received gratuity and other retirement benefits. Later on respondents 1 and 2 filed two petitions before the 3rd respondent, which is the Labour Court, Kozhikode, as C.P. No. 2 of 1976 and C.P. No. 3 of 1976 under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949 (shortly, the Act). The petitioner, which was the respondent in those cases, contended that the 3rd respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the two petitions and that since the two petitioners therein were retired on attaining the age of superannuation the questions of retrenchment and payment of compensation did not arise. Those contentions were turned down and the 3rd respondent passed Ext. P1 order. In C.P. No. 2 of 1976 the respondent therein was directed to pay Rs. 1,834.50 as retrenchment compensation and in C.P. No. 3 of 1976 the compensation determined was Rs. 2,374.95. The petitioner challenges Ext. P3 award.

(2.) The first contention urged by the petitioner before me is that respondents 1 and 2 are precluded from contending that they were not sent out on attainment of the age of superannuation and that the termination of their services constituted retrenchment within the meaning of the Act. It is not disputed before me that the contract of employment did not specify that the concerned workmen have to retire on attaining 58 years. The contention of the petitioner is therefore founded on the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (briefly, Act 39 of 1972). It is undisputed that respondents 1 and 2 received gratuity from the petitioner employer. Payment of gratuity is governed by S.4 of Act 39 of 1972. sub-.(1) of S.4 which alone is relevant for the purpose of this case may be read:

(3.) The alternative argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner firm is that the 3rd respondent had no jurisdiction to adjudge the compensation payable to respondents 1 and 2 by the petitioner. The two petitions which led to Ext. P1 order were laid under S.33C(2) of Act 14 of 1947. That provision may be read: