- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant in these appeals, E. I. D. Parry (India) Ltd. , owns factories and commercial establishments. One of its factories is at Ranipet. Parry and Company Ltd. , a subsidiary of the appellant company has only commercial establishments. These appeals arise from claims made by various categories of employees of the appellant before the Labour court under Section 33-C (2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking to recover, inter alia, a retirement allowance and an annual review of this retirement allowance in terms of General Office Order No. 26 dated 1/12/1943 and the settlements of 1956. The orders of the Labour court in one set of applications were challenged before the Madras High court in various writ petitions from which appeals were filed before the division bench of the High court. The division bench ,. by its judgment and order dated 25:6.1994 held that in the case of workers in the Ranipet factory, those workers whohad availed of any of the Voluntary 'retirement Schemes framed by the appellant were not entitled to a retirement allowance. On the interpretation of G. O. O. No. 26 the Division, Bench further said that an annual review of retirement allowance was a matter of discretion for the management. It also held that in respect of those workers who had completed 20 years of service but had not completed 30 years of service at the date of superannuation, the payment of retirement allowance was a matter of discretion for the Board of Management under G. O. O. No. 26.
(3.) In another set of applications filed by the workers in the commercial establishment under Section 33-C (2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the orders given by the Labour court were challenged in writ petitions from which appeals were filed before the division bench of the Madras High court. These came up for hearing before a division bench different from the one which had heard the earlier writ appeals. The division bench by its judgment and order dated 17/8/1994 held that the employees in the commercial establishment retiring on superannuation after completing 30 years of service were entitled to a retirement allowance. It, however, held that employees who had retired under any of the Voluntary Retirement Schemes were not entitled to a retirement allowance. In respect of the right to a retirement allowance of those employees who had completed 20 years of service or more on the date of superannuation but had not completed 30 years of service, it differed from the view taken by the earlier Division Bench and referred the matter to a full bench.;