It was also urged by the appellant that the claim for pension which the respondent sought to make at the time when he voluntarily retired was number valid or justified.
Thereafter, on 27 12 1955, the respondent received a companyy of the office order, by which he was told that he had been granted gratuity of Rs.
At the hearing of the appeal before us the learned Attorney General sought to raise two new points neither of which had been taken either before the Assistant Labour Commissioner or before the Industrial Court.
AA 2 .
The other new point which the appellant seeks to raise and which was taken in the petition for special leave before this Court is whether a dispute relating to a single employee which is number taken up by the employees or the union is an industrial dispute.
On 28 5 1955, he applied to the appellant that he should be retired at full pension as per the Companys rules.
That is why he stated that he did number know why gratuity was being granted to him because he was under the impression that the pension scheme was in force and that he was entitled to full pension.
The appellant was also directed to pay back wages to the respondent for the intervening period.
It is on these facts that the respondent companytended that his services had been illegally terminated by the appellant and as such he was entitled to reinstatement.
It is this termination of his service against which the respondent applied to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, under Section 16, Sub section 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
The same companytentions were raised by the appellant before the Revisional Court and with the same result.
The Industrial Court held that the view taken by the Assistant Labour Commissioner was right and that the respondent was entitled to an order of reinstatement with back wages.
Against this decision the appellant preferred a revisional application before the Industrial Court, Madhya Bharat, Indore, under Section 19 of the Act.
5,000 and that he would cease work from 28 12 1955 Ex.
This office order was number acceptable to the respondent, who made a protest and stated that he was prepared to companytinue working until he was granted pension according to the rules and custom of the appellant.
He also requested that in addition a reasonable gratuity may be paid to him Ex.
It is against this order that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
It may be companyvenient at the outset to state the relevant facts.
In the result, the revisional application filed by the appellant failed and was dismissed with companyts.
Accordingly he requested for a reconsideration of his case and pressed for grant of pension to him Ex.
Accordingly, on 28 12 1955, the respondent handed over charge under protest.
On 5 12 1955, the respondent replied to the letter received by him from the appellant on 3 12 1955, that he was thankful for the appellants willingness to grant him gratuity but that he was keen about his pension and he reminded the appellant that his request in that behalf had been recommended to the Head Office at Calcutta for sanction.
The respondent was a Head Clerk working with the appellant for nearly 35 years.
On 29 10 1955, he renewed his request and prayed that he may be allowed to avail himself of all leave due to him from 2 1 1956, and that he may be retired on full pension after the expiry of the said leave.
A claim for pension was added in this letter on the ground that he had rendered meritorious service for a long period to the appellant Ex.
This claim was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the dispute between the parties was number an industrial dispute inasmuch as the respondent had voluntarily retired.
Both these pleas were rejected by the Labour Assistant Commissioner with the result that the appellant was asked to reinstate the respondent in its service.
B. Gajendragadkar, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the Manager, Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd., hereinafter called the appellant and Mr. J. Bastian, who was employed by the appellant as a Head Clerk hereinafter called the respondent .
One of these was taken in the petition for special leave before this Court and the other was sought to be added by a subsequent application for leave to take an additional point.
It appears that on 28 12 1955, the respondent handed over charge of his office under protest to Mr. Satyabralal, as a result of the order passed by the appellant.
He alleged that the termination of his service was illegal and improper and he prayed for an order for his reinstatement by the appellant.
