J.B. Koshy, J.

Appellants challenge Ext.P14 order of the Labour Court passed under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Respondents 2 and 3 approached the Labour Court contending that their services were terminated with effect from 31-12-1997 due to superannuation. The claimants were served with Ext.P1 notice dated 28-12-1997 that their services are terminated due to superannuation with effect from 31-12-1997 and they can collect their salary upto 31-12-1997 and retrial benefits from the office. They contended that they were illegally terminated, as there is no retirement age in the establishment. Therefore, they cannot be superannuated at the age of 60. The claimants had filed claim petitions for gratuity before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. As stated in the petition, they filed representations before the Labour Officer alleging denial of employment. On his advice the claim petition was filed before the Labour Court. But, petition was filed only for retrenchment compensation and notice pay payable under section 25(F) of the Industrial disputes Act. That was allowed by the Labour Court by Ext.P14 order. Contention of the writ petitioner was that both the above workers met the managing partners and submitted that they are overaged as they completed 60 years of age and they cannot work and, therefore, they should be relieved and then only their termination order was issued. It is their further contention that when the workers complained to the Deputy Labour Officer, Labour Officer was also informed that termination orders were issued on the basis of their request and if they are willing to work, they can work in the company and there is no denial of employment or illegal retrenchment. Therefore, he did not send a report to the Government for referring the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication.

2. The learned single Judge ordered as follows:

“3. The Tribunal was justified in upholding the pleas of the workman that since the age of superannuation from the service of the establishment was not fixed by the writ petitioners, they are entitled to the benefits due. It was accordingly that the Labour Court relied on materials including those referable to proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act and quantified the amounts due to the two workmen as Rs.22,286/- and Rs.22,619/- respectively retrenchment compensation.”

In fact, gratuity was not ordered by the Labour Court. That application is pending before the district Labour Officer who is the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullunder and others ((1980) 1 SCC 4) held that claim for gratuity can be made only before the authorities mentioned under Payment of Gratuity Act and not before the Labour Court under section 33C (2) of the I.D. Act. What is ordered in this case by the Labour Court is retrenchment compensation and notice pay. Retrenchment compensation and notice pay is payable only if there is a finding that petitioners were illegally retrenched violating the statutory provisions. That claim was disputed by the management. That matter cannot be decided in a petition under section 33C (2) of the I.D. Act.

3. Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as follows:

“33C. Recovery of money due from an employer: xx xx xx xx

(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate government within a period not exceeding three months:

PROVIDED that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend su