P MATHAPPAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. S. Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Geetha Thamaraiselvan, learned Government Advocate representing the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Giridhar Rao, for the third respondent and perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioners 78 in number, were all erstwhile employees of the third respondent factory in Salem. By a notice dated 10.7.1994, the said factory introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). THE said scheme included payment of salary for the substantial period of service left out and also special gratuity. All the 78 petitioners accepted the VRS including the special gratuity. Subsequently, the Trade Unions and the third respondent Management, on 06.02.1995, entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'I.D. Act'] providing for wage revision. Paragraphs 1, 36 and 37 of the said Settlement read as follows:-

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the first respondent, who is the appellate authority under the Gratuity Act. Their appeals were taken on file as P.G. Appeal Nos. 3/97, 4/97 and 6/97. The appellate authority, by his order dated 27.6.1997, confirmed the order of the second respondent and dismissed all the appeals. In paragraphs 29 and 30, the appellate authority recorded his findings, which read as follows:-