Rules of Procedure cannot stand in the way of granting the relief.

The writ petition is filed to quash the common award passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No.305 of 1981 and in the Claim Petition No.59 of 1981, both dated 17. 1985 by issuing a writ of certiorari.

2. The petitioner was an employee of the second respondent concern. The petitioner was a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the police department and after his retirement he joined the service of the second respondent firm on 8. 1972. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the founder Director of the second respondent establishment one late J.W.Devasahayam and the petitioner were colleagues in the Police Department, and since the petitioner was the skilled person he was employed to do technical, manual and clerical works. The case of the petitioner is that he was assisting the Director in all aspects of the working of the establishment of the second respondent concern, though he was des-ignated only as a Security Officer in that establishment. According to the petitioner he did not discharge any duties or functions which are administrative, managerial or supervisory in nature and he was employed to do only the matters relating to the security. The pay of the petitioner was Rs. 1,000 per month. The petitioner submits that after the death of J.W.Devasahayam, his wife became the Director and his son Prabhakar became the Manager. After some time, Prabhakar became the Director and his wife became the Manager. After Prabhakar became the Manager, some disputes and misunderstandings arose between the petitioner and the Director and when the petitioner tried to advise the Director that the establishment should implement all the labour laws, the Director, became rude towards the petitioner and asked the petitioner to quit the establish- ment. The petitioner being the man of dignity and self-esteem quit the establishment on and from 17. 1979. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and hence approached the Government for a reference of the dispute and the Government also referred the dispute, and that is, I.D.No.305 of 1981.

3. The petitioner also filed a claim petition under Sec.33(c) of the Act claiming minimum bonus at the rate of 8.33% for the period from 8. 1972 to 17. 1979 amounting to Rs.7,000. The claim petition for bonus was numbered as C.P.No.59 of 1981. The second respondent filed a counter statement in I.D.No.305 of 1981 denying the averments made by the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was Chief Executive of the respondent company and he was engaged in security and detective services. The second respondent has stated that the petitioner was administering and managing the day-to-day affairs of the respondent company. It was denied that the petitioner was doing the clerical work, and therefore, it was stated that he is not a workman within the meaning of the Act. Further it is stated that the petitioner has resigned from services without any coercion or duress by the second respondent and there is no question of termination of service. It is also stated since the petitioner has voluntarily retired from service, it would not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Sec.2(oo) of the Act.

4. As far as the claim petition is concerned, the second respondent has filed a counter statement reiterating the petitioner was engaged only as a Chief Executive to carry out the supervisory and administrative works and he is not a workman within the meaning of the Act. Hence, it is stated the claim petition under Sec.33-C(2) of the Act did not lie. Further, it is also stated the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of payment of bonus as it involves disputed questions of fact. It is also stated that the second respondent was only incurring loss and hence the petition filed under Sec.33-C (2) of the Act to