1. The prayer in the Writ Petitions are for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the second respondent in P.G. Appeal Nos.53 & 29 of 2002 dated 31.1.2003. The matter arises under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services of the first respondent company on 23.6.1965 as Trade Trainee and his services were regularised on 1.11.1996 and he attained the age of supper annuation on 30.4.1998 in the post of highly skilled road Tester and his last drawn wage was Rs.8,899/- per month. The first respondent Company calculated the total number of years of service as 31 years and it is the case of the petitioner that the total length of service rendered by him is 32 years and 10 months which is to be rounded off to 33 years and therefore his wages were not properly calculated. If the total length of service is taken as 33 years and taking into consideration his last drawn wage as 8,899/-, the petitioner would get higher amount of gratuity in terms of the following calculation:

8899 z 342 x 15 x 33= Rs.1,69,290.00

Paid= Rs.1,32,279.00

Rs. 37,011.00

3. The petitioner is stated to have made representation for payment of the shortfall in gratuity and since no favourable orders were passed, he submitted a Claim Petition before the Payment of Gratuity Authority. The authority by its order dated 26.12.2001 partly allowed the petitioners Application and directed that the total length of service should be taken as 32 years. Against such order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent. The first respondent Management also filed an appeal to the second respondent against the order of the original authority. Both the appeals were heard and the second respondent dismissed the appeal by an order dated 31.1.2003. Aggrieved by such order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioners total length of service ought to have been calculated from the date of the first appointment i.e. 23.6.1965 and if the same is taken, the total length of service will be 33 years. The Payment of Gratuity Authority though partly accepted the plea, failed to give the full benefit of 33 years, but, erroneously concluded that the total length of service is only 32 years. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner had produced the pay slip for the month of April 1998 before the authority and without considering the said document, the wage calculation was made and therefore the order of the authority is erroneous.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel that while filing an appeal before the second respondent a specific ground was raised stating that the petitioner had produced the last drawn wage bill, but the authority had given a finding as if no document was produced. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the second respondent ought to have been addressed the specific question raised by the petitioner as regards the computation of the wages paid to the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel would submit that the period of service rendered as Trade Trainee cannot be ignored by the authorities while computing the gratuity and in support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in (2001) 3 MLJ 382 [S.ARUNACHALAM Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN STRUCTURALS, PATTABIRAM, MADRAS]. Further, the learned counsel by placing reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1980 SCC 1944 [D.W.MILLS LTD., Vs. M.P.BUCH] would submit that wages for 26 working days has to be treated as monthly wages and this decision of the Honble Supreme Court has also been followed by this court in the decision reported in 1981 (1) LLJ page 86. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the order passed by the second respondent calls for interference.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Mana