M. Ramachandran, J.

Petitioners in all these Original Petitions were employees of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited, a Government of Kerala undertaking. On their retirement, according to the guidelines, which were being followed as per the scheme prescribed by the Government, gratuity had been paid by the employer. Petitioners believed that they were entitled to a better deal and had approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The complaint was that the full and eligible gratuity payable to them had been kept back and there should be a direction therefore to pay the full gratuity as legally admissible to them. They claimed that the rate should be maintained as one month wages for every completed year but the ceiling should be as prescribed by the Act. Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the rate is 15 days wages per year of service, with a maximum limit of Rs.3.5 lakhs.

2. It is evident that, earlier, taking notice of the demand of the workmen of the Industry, the Government had issued orders as early as in 1989, to the effect that the employees are entitled to be paid gratuity at the rate of one month's salary for every completed year of service. At that time, upper limit of Rs.50,000/- had been fixed as a maximum gratuity payable by the Government Order. It was revised later by Order G.O.(MS).No.50/96/AD dated 3.2.1996, whereby the maximum limit was increased to rupees one lakh. After this revision, there are no subsequent Government Orders enhancing the upper limit.

3. The employer here had paid a maximum amount as per the Government Order, and it was in this context that the petitioners approached the Authority, with a claim that full entitlement has not been extended to them. Their claim that one month's salary for every completed year of service, and the upper limit of Rs.3.5 lakhs was not accepted by the Controlling Authority. But, the Authority directed that the petitioners would be entitled to gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, that is, at the rate of 15 days salary per year for every completed year of service, as it would have been more advantageous. The comparative figures would illustrate the position, as given below:-

4. The second petitioner, for example in O.P.No.6123 of 2001 was getting total monthly wages of Rs.6,140/-. He had a qualifying service of 40 years. If the rate as per Government Order alone was taken notice of, he should have got Rs.2,45,600/­- (Rs.6140 x 40). The ceiling however had to be worked, and the maximum payment got limited to rupees one lakh, and it had been paid.

5. The Controlling Authority was of opinion that the benefit of calculation as per the Gratuity Act could not have been denied to him. Therefore, the figure was worked out at Rs.1,41,692/- (Rs.6140 x 15 x 40)/26. He was to be therefore paid the balance, viz. Rs.41,692/-. In all other cases, as well excess amounts were thus payable.

6. The Controlling Authority were by had repelled their contentions that the rate has to be maintained at one month's salary for every completed year of service. The Authority held that it had no jurisdiction to pronounce upon a claim as coming within and not in accordance with the parameters that had been prescribed by the Act. He opted to continue as a Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, and maintained that he had no jurisdiction to travel beyond the statute and limits, nor was enjoying powers of any original jurisdiction.

7. The Appellate Authority confirmed the orders which resulted in these petitions.

8. The contentions of the petitioners are rested on the wordings of S.4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. According to them, it was within the purview of the Controlling Authority to take notice of the service conditions, and apply such prescriptions to the terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act as well. When the service condition of the petitioners provided for payment of gratuity at the rate of 30 days per year this cou