Gratuity and retrenchment compensation are entirely different and there is no reason for denying the workers the benefits of both.

ORDER :

P.S. Kailasam, J.—These petitions are preferred by the proprietor of a company which is dealing in timber in Cannanore for the issue of writs of certiorari calling for the records of the presiding officer of the labour court, Madras, dated 19 October 1965, in the claim petitions and quashing the same.

2. The facts in all the four writ petitions are similar and the petitions can be disposed of by a common order. The facts in Writ Petition No. 441 of 1966 are these. The petitioner-firm had two branches, cue at Mangalore and other at Madras. The Madras branch was a sales depot where sale of timber received from the head office was effected. In the Madras branch the petitioner had under its employment seven persons as staff and workmen. The petitioner decided to suspend the sale of timber at Madras branch with effect from 1 July 1964. He, therefore, advised the staff and workmen by a telegram on 29 June 1964 that the petitioner was closing down his Madras business, and that the services of the staff and workmen well be terminated from 30 June 1964. The telegram was confirmed by a confirmatory notice. The claims of the workmen were not settled and there was an attempt at conciliation proceedings. Thereafter, the workmen moved the labour court by filing claim petitions u/s 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman claimed several reliefs, viz,

(1) retrenchment compensation;

(2) gratuity;

(3) bonus for the year 1963-64;

(4) one month's salary in lieu of notice;

(5) leave wages ; and

(6) difference in dearness allowance; as per award from 1960 to date of retrenchment.

The petitioner before the labour court conceded the claim for gratuity and for the month's salary in lieu of notice, but disputed the other claims. The main contention of the petitioner before the labour court was that the industrial tribunal had made an award in IT, No. 1 of 1960 on 15 March 1960 proposing a gratuity scheme in the following terms:

(1) On termination of service by reason of permanent physical disability on medical grounds or by death, fifteen days' basic wages for each completed year of service.

(2) On termination of service by the management except in case of dismissal for misconduct involving moral turpitude or by resignation, for service of more than ten years, fifteen days' basic wages for each completed year of service.

It was contended that the award which dealt with the bonus for the year 1956-57 should be deemed to have enunciated that general principle governing the grant of bonus in subsequent years also.

3. The labour court by its decision on 19 October 1985 granted the claim of the workmen in toto.

4. In these writ petitions the management has questioned the decision of the labour court on the ground that as the dispute is as regards the claim for retrenchment compensation, the labour court ought to have held that the scheme of payment of gratuity provided in the award of the industrial tribunal in I.T. No. 1 of 1960 is in force. The payment of gratuity must be deemed to be in the nature of retrenchment compensation and the decision of the labour court directing the payment of gratuity as well as retrenchment compensation is illegal and unjustified in law. Though it was submitted that the labour court was in error in granting relief as to bonus for the year 1963-64, compensation for leave wages and the difference in dearness allowance, the objection was not pressed before me. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the award in I.T. No. 1 of 1960 which provides for payment of gratuity would disentitle the workers for claiming retrenchment compensation.

5. In Indian Hume Pipe Company, Ltd. v. its workmen and Anr. 1959 -II L.L.J, 830 the Supreme Court has pointed out the difference between gratuity and retrenchment compensation, it is held by the Supreme Court that gratuity is a kind of retirement benefit like the provident fund or pension, that the gratuity paid to workmen is intended to help them after retirement