Case Law Details
Chhattisgarh High Court held that Teacher of fully aided school is an employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and entitled for gratuity.
1. Critical question that arises for consideration is whether teacher of fully aided educational institution can be held to be “employee” within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1972”) to enable the teacher to claim gratuity ?
2. Petitioner-school is a minority institution and receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government. Respondent No. 5 herein was superannuated on 30.6.2003 from the petitioner’s school as Assistant Teacher. He made an application under Section 4 read with Section 7 of the Act of 1972 and Rule 10 of the said Act stating inter-alia that he is entitled for gratuity from petitioner’ school as definition of “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972 has been amended with effect from 3.4.1997 bringing the “teacher” within the definition of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972, therefore, he is entitled for amount of gratuity. The Controlling Authority by order dated 23.3.2013 allowed that application holding inter- alia that definition of “employee” has been amended with effect from 3.4.1997 by the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 and therefore, he is entitled for amount of gratuity payable by the petitioner’s Institution and accordingly, directed for payment of gratuity.
3. Feeling dissatisfied with the order passed by the Controlling Authority, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal under Section 7 (7) of the Act of 1972 before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority by order dated 22.8.2014 affirmed the order of the Controlling Authority finding inter-alia that respondent No.5 is entitled for amount of gratuity pursuant to the amendment in the Payment of Gratuity Act, in which educational institution has been brought into definition of “employee” under Section 2 (e) pursuant to the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 with effect from 3.4.1997.
4. Questioning the order of the Appellate Authority affirming the order of the Controlling Authority, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner institution stating inter-alia that order passed by the Appellate Authority holding the petitioner institution liable to make payment of gratuity is unsustainable and bad in law as petitioner- school is 100% Government aided school and it is for the State Government, if any, to make payment of gratuity and as such, order of the Appellate Authority affirming the order of the Controlling Authority deserves to be set aside and it be held that petitioner-school is not liable to make payment of gratuity.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Have the teacher of the school received gratuity as claimed by him or not