ORDER : 1. The third respondent was employed as a Microbiologist in the Writ petitioner industry. He had put in 20 years of service. Since the petitioner stopped their production from October 2005, they wanted to axe all the persons working in their Unit. The third respondent wrote a letter on 29.12.2005, calling upon the management to pay him retrenchment compensation. The management addressed a letter dated 04.01.2006 enclosing a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.1,55,459/-. In the said letter, the management called upon the third respondent to accept the said amount as his retrenchment benefit and as a final settlement amount. The third respondent accepted the said amount and thereafter, raised a claim for payment of Gratuity. The management did not accede to the demand of the third respondent. Therefore, the third respondent filed an application before the controlling authority. The controlling authority by order dated 19.09.2008, allowed the third respondent's application and directed the management to pay a sum of Rs.1,38,461/- as Gratuity with simple interest. The same was questioned by the management by filing an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent concurred with the order of the controlling authority substantially and disposed of the appeal in the following terms:- “It is ordered that the order dated 19.09.2008 of the Controlling Authority is modified to the extent of omitting the components of House Rent Allowance and conveyance Allowance while computing the wages for the payment of gratuity amount to the respondent ex-employee, Shri.J.Jeyakumar. The Controlling authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner(C), Madurai, is ordered to compute the correct gratuity amount accordingly for payment to Shri.J.Jeyakumar, the respondent ex-employee by M/s.Premier Marine products, the appellant employer. The Controlling Authority is ordered to initiate further action in accordance with the provisions of the Act.” These orders are under challenge at the instance of the management. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the management as well as the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the management endeavoured to convince this Court that while sending the letter dated 04.01.2006, it was omitted to be mentioned that the amount covered by the Demand Draft represents one month notice pay, compensation and Gratuity. He faulted the authorities for misconstruing the text of the said letter. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the management endeavoured to convince this Court that while sending the letter dated 04.01.2006, it was omitted to be mentioned that the amount covered by the Demand Draft represents one month notice pay, compensation and Gratuity. He faulted the authorities for misconstruing the text of the said letter. According to him, there was a mistake and omission in the letter dated 04.01.2006 which ought not to have been taken advantage by the third respondent. 4. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel appearing for the management. It is not as if the third respondent retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation. On the other hand, the third respondent was sent out, because the management had decided to stop the production activities. Therefore, what happened to the third respondent can only be termed as a retrenchment. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the management would submit that in view of the post held by the third respondent, he cannot call himself as a worker. If the third respondent was a worker, then he is certainly entitled to retrenchment compensation under Section 25(F) of THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. The said provision states that the worker must be given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or be paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice. That apart he should also be paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. Even by a conservative estimate, if compensation payable to the third respondent is calculated in terms of Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act, 1947, it would be around Rs.1,55,000/-. If as contended by the management counsel, the third respondent is not a worker, then he is entitled to compensation in terms of the contract of the employment. In many cases, the management would incorporate a condition in the appointment letter that the employee can be given one month's salary and then sent away without giving any notice. But in this case, no such contract of employment has been marked before the authorities. It is not unknown that the managements to ease out its employees offer what is known as golden handshake. But in this case, no such contract of employment has been marked before the authorities. It is not unknown that the managements to ease out its employees offer what is known as golden handshake. Therefore, if the amount already paid to the third respondent is not retrenchment compensation, it is to be considered as a golden handshake. 6. It is true that the letter dated 04.01.2006 indicates that the amount was paid to the third respondent as a full and final settlement. But then, in matters relating to payment of gratuity, the principle of estoppel or waiver cannot be applicable. Section 14 of THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, makes it is clear that the provisions of the said Act will have an overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment or in any instrument or contract. Therefore, the right of the third respondent to receive Gratuity cannot be taken away, merely because, he accepted the Demand Draft enclosed with the letter dated 04.01.2006. 7. The appellate authority has called upon the controlling authority to redo the exercise. Therefore, this Court finds nothing to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. The controlling authority shall redo the exercise as mandated by the appellate authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The Writ petition stands dismissed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.