Matter already attained finality as such can not be re-opened.

The first six W.P.Nos.1446, 1605, 1606, 1971 to 1973 of 1987 arise out of a common order dated 312. 1986 made in P.G.A. Nos.9, 7, 8, 6, 10 and 11 of 1986 respectively, while W.P.No. 1627 of 1987 arises out of an order dated 8. 1986 in P.G.A. No.14 of 1985, on the file of the appellate authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Madras-6. In the first 6 writ petitions, M/ s.Spencer & Co. Ltd., Madras-2 is the writ petitioner, while, the Brooke Bond India Limited is the petitioner in the seventh writ petition.

2. The six employees of M/s.Spencer & Co. Ltd., Madras-2 and one employee of M/s.Brooke Bond India Ltd., have filed applications before the controlling authority claiming balance of gratuity paid to them, since according to them, gratuity paid by the management was less than the amount which they were entitled to. Those applications were allowed by the Controlling Authority. Hence, appeals were preferred by the management to the appellate authority. Since their appeals were also rejected, the present writ petitions have been filed before this Court for quashing the order passed by the appellate authority, confirming the order passed by the controlling authority. In all the 7 cases, the employees retired from their services. Thereupon gratuity amounts were paid to them and as they were not satisfied, they moved the controlling authority. Since there is no dispute with reference to the date and amounts, computed by the controlling authority and confirmed by the appellate authority in the writ petition, I think it is not necessary to give details about the date of retirement and the amount computed by the controlling authority in each of the writ petitions. The writ petitions have been preferred mainly on an interpretation of the relevant sections of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The contention raised in all these writ petitions is that the computation of the gratuity payable to the employees made by the controlling authority and confirmed by the appellate authority is not in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Sec.4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as “the Act”; enables the retired employee to claim gratuity, on the termination of his employment after a continuous service for not less than 5 years. The gratuity becomes payable as per the said Sec.(a) on his superannuation; (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.4 is the relevant Section, which is as follows:

“For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days’ wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned”

Explanation: In the case of monthly rated employee, the fifteen days’ wages shall be calculated by dividing the monthly rate of wages last drawn by him by twenty-six and multiplying the quotient by fifteen.

(3) The amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed one lakh rupees. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the 3rd respondent in all these writ petitions are undoubtedly entitled for gratuity. The petitioners in all these petitions calculated the gratuity strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Sub-secs. (l) to (3) of Sec.4. After such computation the amounts have also been paid. Not satisfied with the amount paid to them, they have filed these writ petitions, on a misreading of the abovesaid Sub-sec.(4)of the Act.

3. The 3rd respondents are monthly wage earners. To arrive at the daily wage, for the purpose of Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.4, the last drawn monthly wage has to be divided by 26. To arrive at the total wage, the same has to be multiplied by 520 because as per the explanation month means 26 days. Therefore for 20 months of 26 days, the total number of days are 520. So, if the daily wage calculated as above is multiplied by