The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of the Settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act in determining an employee's entitlement to retirement benefits.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records pertaining to the order of the 3rd respondent dated 14.08.2015 in AGA No.256 of 2014 confirming the order made in A.G.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent dated 16.06.2014 and quash the same.)

1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the 3rd respondent in A.G.A.No.256 of 2014, dated 14.08.2015, confirming the order made in G.No.55 of 2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent dated 16.06.2014, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner had joined the services of the 1st respondent Management on 11.02.1972 as Grade-3 Machine Operator and had rendered 38 years of service. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2010. The retirement benefits of the petitioner, including Gratuity, payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, were calculated as per his last drawn wages . According to the petitioner, he had received a sum of Rs.22,000/- as salary at the time of his retirement and as per his last drawn salary, the petitioner had to receive a sum of Rs.4,82,307/- as gratuity but the 1st respondent Management had paid only Rs.2,83,795/- as gratuity.

3. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had sent a notice to the 1st respondent Management, but the first respondent Management failed to pay the balance gratuity amount of Rs.1,98,512/- In this regard, the petitioner filed an application in G.A.No.55/2012 before the second respondent, under Section 4(1) (a) of the Gratuity Act, seeking for the payment of balance gratuity amount from the first respondent Management.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent, without considering the documents and valid points raised by the petitioner, had dismissed the above application filed in G.A.No55/2012 vide order dated 16.06.2014. Aggrieved against such dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.G.A.No.256 of 2014 before the third respondent and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2015. Further, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2015 seeking the first respondent to produce the original salary register and attendance register of the petitioner. But the same was dismissed along with A.G.A.No.256 of 2014 vide order dated 14.08.2015. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has not considered the fact that even though the Settlement under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was signed on 02.04.2010, it came into force from 01.03.2010 itself, i.e. the specific period when the Settlement came into force, the petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent Management.

6. Moreover, it is the further contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent/Appellate Authority failed to consider that the 2nd respondent, without deciding the salary of the petitioner as per clause 15 of the Ma.Sa.As-3 had misconstrued the clause 16 of the Ma.Sa.Aa-3 and has fixed the petitioner''s salary as Rs.10,400/-. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd respondent failed to consider that the 2nd respondent had misconstrued and wrongly arrived at a conclusion that the leave period is from 01.10.2009 to 01.04.2010, whereas it is from 01.10.2009 to 28.02.2010 and the Settlement Agreement came into force from 01.03.2010 itself.

7. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have wrongly connected the petitioner''s case with that one of Kone Elevators India Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Labour II, reported in 2005 (1) LLN 960, which is totally different from the present facts of the case. According to the petitioner, at the time of implementation of the Settlement, dated 02.04.2010, the petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent Management and