1. Respondents 1 and 2 in this case were employees of the petitioner, which is a firm. The petitioner issued Exts. P2 and P3 dated 13-11-1974 retiring respondents 1 and 2 from service on the ground that they have exceeded the age of 58 years. Respondents 1 and 2 received gratuity and other retirement benefits. Later on respondents 1 and 2 filed two petitions before the 3rd respondent, which is the Labour Court, Kozhikode as C.P. No. 2 of .1976 and C. P. No. 3 of 1976 under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1949 (shortly the Act). The petitioner, which was the respondent in those cases, contended that the 3rd respondent had.no jurisdiction to entertain the two petitions and that since the two petitioners therein were retired on attaining the age of superannuation the questions of retrenchment and payment of compensation did not arise. Those contentions were turned down and the 3rd respondent passed Ext. P1 order. In C. P. No. 2 of 1976 the respondent therein was directed to pay Rs. 1,834.50 as retrenchment compensation and in C. P. No. 3 of 1976 the compensation determined was Rs. 2,374.95. The petitioner challenges Ext. P3 award.

2. The first contention urged by th