S. SUBRAMANIAN Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR (APPEAL), CHENNAI AND THE MANAGEMENT, B & C MILLS, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to P.G.A. No.24 of 1997 on the file of the first respondent dated 27.10.1997, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent Mill to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.68,767.41.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he was employed as Examiner Grade I in Central Warehouse Department at the second respondent Mill in the year 1951; that his date of birth is 16.7.1928 and therefore, his superannuation would fall on 16.7.1986; that while so, he received a communication from the second respondent Mill dated 6.2.1985 informing that his service stands superannuated on 12.3.1985; that he called upon the second respondent and informed that he should retire only on 16.7.1986 since his date of birth was 16.7.1928; that he filed a suit in O.S.No.1932 of 1985 on the file of the XIX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for a declaration that the date of birth of the petitioner is 16.7.1928 and for an injunction restraining the second respondent management from retiring the petitioner; that even though an ex -parte order of injunction was passed at the instance of the second respondent, by filing a petition to vacate the same, the order got vacated and the petitioner was retired from service on 12.3.1985.

(3.) The petitioner would further submit that though the suit was originally decreed on 25.4.1990 as prayed for, the same was set aside on 7.4.1994 on an appeal preferred by the second respondent Mill in A.S.No.64 of 1990, allowing the same by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras; that since he had already attained the age of 64, he was advised to approach the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and hence he filed a petition in P.G. No.605 of 1995 for issuing suitable directions to the second respondent to disburse the gratuity amount which fell due to the petitioner in April 1985 consequent to his retirement on 12.3.1985 along with interest; that he contended before the Controlling Authority that he worked under the second respondent Mill from 8.2.1951 to 12.3.1985 and that his monthly salary then was Rs.1,765/=; that the second respondent Mill opposed the claim of the petitioner on ground that the petitioner, in pursuance to the orders of the Court, was evicted from the quarters on 28.10.1994; that the petitioner's daily wage worked out only to Rs.43.02; that since the petitioner worked for 34 years, the gratuity amount payable to him was Rs.21,940/=; that further the petitioner was called upon to receive his gratuity amount, by their letter dated 22.11.1994, but he did not choose to do so and that he might be advised to collect the said amount.