AZAMJAHI MILLS Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a public limited company and respondents 2 to 11 are its former employees. Under a scheme introduced by the employer, the employees opted to take voluntary retirement. They were to receive compensation equivalent to 15 days wages for every completed year of service in addition to their eligible gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for short "the Gratuity Act". The employer worked out the compensation payable under the agreement on the basis of 30 days a month and paid the compensation. The employees filed petitions before the 1st respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said petitions were disposed of by a common order by the first respondent on 22/07/1987, directing the employer to pay the difference of wages on calculating the compensation for 15 days on the basis of 26 days a month. It is the correctness of the common order of the first respondent that is assailed in this writ petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the employees worked for the whole month and are given paid holidays, therefore Sundays should also be included while calculating 15 days wages. The method of calculation, submits the learned Counsel, envisaged under the Gratuity Act would not apply to payment made under an agreement between the employer and the employees and that the wages will have to be paid only on calculating on the basis of 30 days a month.

(3.) Mr. Y. Jagan Mohan, the learned Counsel appearing for the employees, submits that the clause under which the compensation is payable uses the same phrase as is used in the Gratuity Act and, therefore, the intention of the parties to the agreement was to pay the wages as contemplated under the Gratuity Act and the 1st respondent has rightly calculated the wages and there is no illegality, much less an error apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference in this writ petition.