Ranganath Misra, C. J. - (1.) These are appeals by special leave and are directed against a common judgment of the Madras High Court delivered in a group of writ appeals and a writ petition.
(2.) E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') has one of its units located at Ranipet in Tamil Nadu State where sanitaryware, super phosphate and insecticides are manufactured. Some of its retiring employees filed applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('1947 Act' for short) before the Labour Court at Madras claiming pension by alleging that payability of pension was a condition of service and the employer had stopped it without any justification and without giving notice under Section 9-A of the 1947 Act. The Presiding Officer of the 2nd Additional Labour Court, Madras, allowed the same by his order dated 30th May, 1983, after computing the amounts. The employer preferred six writ petitions. In the meantime the same dispute had been referred to the industrial 'Tribunal' and it answered the reference against the employees by award dated 13th February, 1985. The award was assailed before the High Court by the Union by filing of the seventh writ petition. All the seven writ petitions were heard by a learned single Judge who allowed the writ petitions of the management against the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition preferred by the labour union challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal. Writ appeals were carried against the single Judge's decision.
(3.) The main controversy before the Division Bench was as to whether pension, or as is referred to by the parties, retiring allowance" was payable to the employees. This dispute has a historical backdrop to which we may now advert. Under General Office Order No. 26 dated 1 st December, 1943 "retiring allowances" were provided for. The Office Order provided that normally only employees with thirty years' service or more would be eligible to receive "Retiring Allowance". The Board reserved the right to alter the scale of "retiring allowance" either generally or in respect of individual employees and had the authority to sanction 'retiring allowance' when first granted and subsequent payment became a routine matter subject to annual review.;