Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vidarbha Youth Welfare Institution (Society), challenged the judgment and order dated 29-5-2010 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, directing payment of gratuity of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest to respondent No.1, Pradipkumar Lambhate, who was the Principal of the Social Work College run by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority confirmed this order on 23-3-2011. The petitioner's sole contention was that respondent No.1, being a teacher, is not covered under the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court noted that this very question was settled by the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association v. Administrative Officer, wherein it was held that teachers are employees under the Act. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the orders of the authorities below.
Headnote
A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Definition of Employee - Section 2(e) - Teacher/Principal - Whether a teacher/principal of a college run by a society is an 'employee' under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - The issue was whether respondent No.1, a Principal of a Social Work College, falls within the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Act. The Court, following the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association v. Administrative Officer, held that teachers are covered under the definition of 'employee' and are entitled to gratuity. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a teacher/principal is covered under the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Teacher is an employee under Payment of Gratuity Act
- 1972
- Section 2(e) definition includes teachers
- Gratuity Act applies to educational institutions
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (02) 142
Writ Petition No.3415 of 2011
Shri S.G. Jagtap for Petitioner, Shri S.T. Harkare for Respondent No.1, Shri J.B. Jaiswal, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3
The President/Secretary, Vidarbha Youth Welfare Institution (Society)
Shri Pradipkumar s/o Ramchandrarao Lambhate, Controlling Authority (u/PGA) and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Amravati, Appellate Authority (u/PGA) and Additional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders of Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 directing payment of gratuity to a retired principal.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (employer) sought to quash the orders directing payment of gratuity to respondent No.1.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that respondent No.1, being a teacher, is not covered under the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Previous Decisions
Controlling Authority allowed the application for gratuity; Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, confirming the order.
Issues
Whether a teacher/principal is an 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondent No.1 is a teacher and not covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi
Teachers are covered under the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as held by the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association v. Administrative Officer.
Judgment Excerpts
The only question urged by Shri Jagtap, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this case is that respondent No.1 is a Teacher and not covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
This very question fell for consideration of the Apex Court in the decision in the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association v. Administrative Officer, wherein it is held that the teachers are covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the said Act.
Procedural History
Respondent No.1 retired on 31-5-2005. He applied to Controlling Authority on 20-9-2006 for gratuity. Controlling Authority allowed the application on 29-5-2010. Petitioner appealed to Appellate Authority, which dismissed the appeal on 23-3-2011. Petitioner then filed this writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972: Section 2(e)
