Judgment : D. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) THE above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single judge of this Court dated April 3, 1991, wherein the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/ workman seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent made in P. G. Appeal No. 18 of 1986 dated October 27, 1986, so far as the first respondent has negatived the claim of the appellant/ writ petitioner by allowing the appeal filed by the second respondent-management. The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the stand taken before us are that the appellant was employed by the second respondent-management from January 1, 1961, and he retired from service on February 28, 1985, and his last drawn wages was Rs. 440 per month and on that basis projected a claim before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Madras, the controlling authority, under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by filing Form. I application claiming gratuity. That application was opposed by the second respondent-management on the ground that the Act had no application to the second respondent establishment and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to any relief as prayed for. The controlling authority by its proceedings in P. G. Case No. 658 of 1985 dated June 26, 1986, came to the conclusion that the Act applied to the second respondent establishment as 30 persons were found working in the said establishment and consequently determined the amount of gratuity payable to the appellant at Rs. 6,092. 30. Aggrieved, the second respondent-management filed an appeal before the appellate authority, viz. , the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Madras-6, in P. G. Appeal No. 18 of 1986. The appellate authority also concurred with the findings of the controlling authority that the Act applied to the second respondent establishment, but at the same time, the appellate authority adjusted a sum of Rs. 5,280 which was paid to the appellant by the management by the communication dated; February 28, 1985, and allowed the claim for payment to the tune of the difference, viz. , Rs. 812. 30 and accordingly the appeal came to be disposed of by the order dated October 27, 1986. 5,280 which was paid to the appellant by the management by the communication dated; February 28, 1985, and allowed the claim for payment to the tune of the difference, viz. , Rs. 812. 30 and accordingly the appeal came to be disposed of by the order dated October 27, 1986. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED with the said order, the appellant has filed W. P. No. 13137 of 1986 seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the first respondent as noticed supra. The learned single Judge agreed with the view taken by the first respondent appellate authority that the ex gratia payment of Rs. 5,280 is liable to be adjusted against the gratuity amount determining and the appellant cannot be allowed to have undue enrichment at the expenses of the management. On the further view also that the order of the first respondent was fair and equitable, the learned single Judge declined to interfere with the same and dismissed the writ petition by his order dated April 3, 1991. Hence, the above appeal. ( 3 ) MR. K. M. Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant/workman contended that the amount of Rs. 5,280 having been paid as per Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is referable to retrenchment compensation, the statutory entitlement under the Payment of Gratuity Act a totally different enactment cannot be nullified and that the sum of Rs. 5,280 paid cannot be treated as gratuitous payment on the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that there is no age of superannuation as such in any condition of service, the employment being in a commercial establishment where there is no such rule of superannuation automatically following the attainment of a particular age. Reliance has been place on the decision in State of Punjab v. Labour Court, (1981-1-LLJ-354) (SC) in support of his claim. ( 4 ) PER contra, Mr. Jawahar Sundaram, learned counsel for the second respondent-management vehemently contended that there was no retrenchment involved in any circumstances with the services of the appellant, that he was retained even after the age of 58 years on compassionate grounds and the amount has been paid only as an ex gratia payment in recognition of his past services and, therefore, it is liable to be adjusted against the claim made in the Payment of Gratuity Act. Learned counsel further argued that the sum of Rs. 5,280 paid was not as retrenchment compensation and in the absence of proof of the entitlement to retrenchment compensation by the appellant/workman, the adjustment allowed by the first respondent appellate authority cannot be stated to be erroneous in law, and, therefore, does not call for any interference. ( 5 ) WE have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing on either side. The Payment of Gratuity Act was enacted by Parliament to provide for a scheme for the payment of gratuity to the employees engaged in factories, mines, oil fields, plantations, ports railway companies, shops or other establishments in order to ensure uniform payment of gratuity to employees throughout the country which benefit was otherwise being earlier extended with reference to an agreement between the management and the workers or union of workers. The statutory liability under the Payment of Gratuity Act is not in lieu of any other entitlement, but stands ion its own. By virtue of Section 4 the provisions of this Act were declared to have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act (vide Section 14 ). ( 6 ) RETRENCHMENT compensation is a totally different benefit separately, recognised and conferred under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The entitlement to retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act and the entitlement to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be said to be available in the alternative or that one is destructive of the other. On the other hand, the entitlement under the two different laws would depend upon the satisfaction of the essential requisites for claiming the sum due under the relevant provisions of these two enactments. Consequently, it would not be open to the second respondent-management to claim that the payment made towards retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act can be set off or adjusted as against the entitlement of or payment to the worker or employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act. ( 7 ) IT is, therefore, claimed by the second respondent-management that the amount of Rs. ( 7 ) IT is, therefore, claimed by the second respondent-management that the amount of Rs. 5,280 paid along with the letter of the management dated February 28, 1985, is an ex gratia payment in recognition of the long services of the appellant in the second respondent establishment and not on account of any entitlement under law. If this stand of the appellant is found to be correct, there can be no exception taken to the adjustment of the said amount as against the payment due on account of the entitlement of the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as has been done by the appellate authority in this case. But, on the other hand, if the sum of Rs. 5,280 has been paid to the workman in recognition of some pre-existing right but not merely as an ex gratia payment, the stand of the second respondent-management has to fail and the order of the first respondent appellate authority as also that of the learned single Judge could not be sustained. ( 8 ) AT this stage, we have to see whether the payment made to the appellant under the communication dated February 28, 1985, by the second respondent-management comes within the meaning of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The very letter dated February 28, 1985, in our view, contained intrinsic material to appreciate the nature and character of the payment effected. The relevant portion of the letter reads as hereunder : "though it is not necessary for the management to offer you any money under law, the management, taking into consideration of your long service and other circumstances, is willing to pay one months notice and compensation at 15 days salary for each year of services as per Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. " ( 9 ) IN the teeth of such an admitted factual position, at a stage when there was no dispute between the parties before any forum, it is futile on the part of the second respondent-management to contend that the said sum of Rs. 5,280 came to be paid not as compensation as per Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, but is ex gratia payment or payment made on compassionate grounds where the employee was not entitled to claim such a payment. 5,280 came to be paid not as compensation as per Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, but is ex gratia payment or payment made on compassionate grounds where the employee was not entitled to claim such a payment. To appreciate further this aspect, the immediate reaction of the appellant/ workman to this communication by his reply dated March 6, 1985, needs to be seen where the appellant has asserted his stand that he was not due for retirement and grave injustice has been done to him by dispensing with the services in spite of his long association with the company and loyalty of service. On the facts and circumstances noticed above, there is no scope for the second respondent to go back on the stand and decision taken by them early in their letter dated February 28, 1985, and make the present plea which seems to be merely an afterthought to contend that the said amount of Rs. 5,280 was paid only by way of ex gratia or gratuitous payment. The first respondent, appellate authority, as well as the learned single Judge could not have legitimately inferred from the facts presented on record that the payment of Rs. 5,280 was made as a gratuitous one, when nothing really was due to the workman. In view of the above, we were unable to agree with the learned single judge in the view taken that the amount of Rs. 5,280 was paid as a gratuitous one and so the same is liable to be adjusted against the gratuity due to the appellant under the Payment of Gratuity Act. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, the order of the learned single Judge is hereby set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. Consequently, the order of the first respondent, the appellate authority, is set aside in so far as it directs the adjustment of a sum of Rs. 5,280 as against the gratuity payment payable to the appellant with a consequential declaration that the appellant shall be entitled to the sum as determined by the controlling authority without any adjustment as ordered to be made by the appellate authority. No costs.