The main legal point established is that individuals who voluntarily retire and accept retirement benefits cannot be considered 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, as defined in S.2(s). The court emphasized that the definition only includes those presently employed or those who have been dismissed, discharged, or retrenched by the employer.

A.R. Lakshmanan ag. CJ.

The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant/ petitioner, who has voluntarily retired from service and who has accepted the benefits of the voluntary retirement, can be treated as a workman as defined in S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We heard Mr. R. Pushpangadan Pillai for the appellant and Mr. Antony Dominic for the respondent.

2. The appellant filed the present Original Petition to call for the records leading upto Ext. P3 and for a mandamus directing the first respondent District Labour Officer, Ernakulam to re-consider the matter and to refer the case to the Government for further necessary action in the matter, or initiate conciliation proceedings as per law. The further prayer is for a declaration that the appellant is a workman under the provisions of law and hence entitled to be dealt with accordingly.

3. The case of the appellant in short is that he took voluntary retirement from the service of respondents 2 and 3 with effect from 21.1.1997 and that the 3rd respondent has also issued Ext. P1 accepting there signation. It is submitted that the appellant joined the company as an unskilled worker on 1.8.1974 on a temporary basis and was granted permanent appointment with effect from 1.11.1977. He was confirmed in the post of Grade I with effect from 1.8.1978. He was promoted to Grade II with effect from 15.7.1978 and was confirmed in that post with effect from 15.1.1979. The appellant was further promoted to Operator Grade III with effect from 1.1.1981 and was confirmed in that post with effect from 1.6.1981. Since he had completed 20 years and eight months of service, the appellant opted for voluntary retirement as per the scheme in the month of January, 1997, which was accepted by the Company by Ext. P1 letter. Along with the petitioner/ appellant herein, a few other workers also opted for voluntary retirement, whose monetary benefits, according to the appellant, were much more than that of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant approached the first respondent District Labour Officer, Ernakulam with a detailed application giving details of employees who retired along with the appellant. The said application is Ext. P2. The 1st respondent, by Ext. P3, rejected the application of the appellant, holding that the appellant would not come under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act as a workman and hence the application had no sustainability and the first respondent had no jurisdiction in the matter. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the Original Petition for the reliefs mentioned above.

4. According to counsel for the appellant, the first respondent, who is an authority under statute, has to act and perform his duties in accordance with law and he cannot overreach and pass orders which are contrary to the provisions of well established law. Therefore, it is submitted that Ext. P3 is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

5. The Writ Petition was contested by the 3rd respondent management by filing a detailed counter affidavit along with Ext. R3(a), which is a memorandum of settlement between the appellant and the management under S.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is seen from the counter affidavit that the appellant has admittedly accepted the voluntary retirement offered by the 3rd respondent, tendered his resignation in pursuance thereof and the resignation was accepted by the 3rd respondent. The appellant, thereafter, settled his accounts fully and finally with the 3rd respondent. It is also to be noted that the appellant also withdrew his statutory benefits such as Provident Fund and Gratuity. All these were done by the appellant on his own free will and accord and, to witness the same, a Memorandum of settlement in Form HH under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act read with the Industrial Disputes (Kerala) Rules was entered into and duly executed. It is, therefore, submitted by the management that in view o