Some of them have retired on superannuation after 30 years service, some have retired on superannuation after more than 20 but less than 30 years service, while others have taken voluntary retirement after 30 years or less than 30 but more than 20 years service.
In respect of the Division Bench judgment of 25.6.1994, special leave petitions were filed before this Court in which ultimately, by an order dated 13th of September, 1995, this Court directed all the disputes in both the impugned judgments of the Division Bench to be decided by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court.
In respect of the right to a retirement allowance of those employees who had companypleted 20 years of service or more on the date of superannuation but had number companypleted 30 years of service, it differred from the view taken by the earlier Division Bench and referred the matter to a Full Bench.
The Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 17.8.1994 held that the employees in the companymercial establishment retiring on superannuation after companypleting 30 years of service were entitled to a retirement allowance.
20686/96 are 85 former employees of the appellant at Ranipet factory.
It also held that in respect of those workers who had companypleted 20 years of service but had number companypleted 30 years of service at the date of superannuation, the payment of retirement allowance was a matter of discretion for the Board of Management under O.O. No.
On the interpretation of G.O.O.No.26 the Division Bench further said that an annual review of retirement allowance was a matter of discretion for the management.
The Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 25.6.1994 held that in the case of workers in the Ranipet factory, those workers who had availed of any of the Voluntary Retirement Schemes framed by the appellant were number entitled to a retirement allowance.
The Full Bench of the Madras High Court accordingly companysidered and decided these issues by its judgment and order dated 5th of August, 1993.
Their claims were the subject matter of the Division Bench judgment dated 25.6.1994 in W.A. No.
The appellant in these appeals, E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., owns factories and companymercial establishments.
In another set of applications filed by the workers in the companymercial establishment under Section 33 C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the orders given by the Labour Court were challenged in writ petitions from which appeals were filed before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
Parry and Company Ltd., a subsidiary of the appellant company has only companymercial establishments.
20306 20307/96 and 20686 of 1996 O R D E R Leave granted.
The Orders of the Labour Court in one set of applications were challenged before the Madras High Court in various writ petitions from which appeals were filed before the Division Bench of the High Court.
With C.A. Nos.
26 dated 1.12.1943 and the settlements of 1956.
2138 2140/1997 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
One of its factories is at Ranipet.
It, however, held that employees who had retired under any of the Voluntary Retirement Schemes were number entitled to a retirement allowance.
