Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.2(e) – Employee – Appellant is a premier technical educational institute of repute in the country – Respondent no.4 joined the appellant-Institute as Assistant Professor and on superannuation claimed gratuity – Entitlement of respondent no.4 to gratuity – Held: The issue involved in the instant appeal is no longer res integra and was decided in Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association, wherein it was held that since a teacher is not an employee under s.2(e) of the Act, he has no right to invoke the provisions of the Act for claiming gratuity under the Act from his/her employer – In view of this principle of law, respondent No.4, who was also a teacher and worked with the appellant as such, was not eligible to claim gratuity amount from the appellant under the Act.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The question that had arisen for consideration in the case of Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association was as to whether “Teacher” could be regarded as an “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Act and, if so, whether he/she is entitled to claim gratuity amount from his employer in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The two-Judge Bench examined this question in detail. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari speaking for the Bench held that a teacher is not an employee within the meaning of the expression “employee” as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and hence he/she is not entitled to claim any gratuity amount from his employer under the Act. Reading this principle of law laid down by this Court, respondent No.4, who was also a teacher and worked with the appellant as such, was not eligible to claim gratuity amount from the appellant (BIT) under the Act. [Paras 12, 13, 14 and 16][304-C-E; 308-A-B]
Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association v. Administrative Officer and Others (2004) 1 SCC 755 : [2004] 1 SCR 470 – relied on.
2. The High Court though took note of the decision rendered in the case of Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association but erred in distinguishing it on the ground that it is applicable only to the primary teachers working in primary schools and since the case at hand is not a case of a primary teacher, it has no application to this case. The High Court failed to see that this Court had examined the expression “teacher” qua the expression “employee” defined in Section 2(e) of the Act and then held that “teacher” is not an employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act. While laying down the law, this Court did not make any distinction between the teachers inter se and nor made any distinction as to in which type of educational institute the teacher is working for determining his entitlement to claim the gratuity under the Act. The view taken by the High Court was not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association. It was based on incorrect reading of this Court’s decision and, therefore, it deserves to be set aside [Paras 17, 19, 20][308-B-C, E-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.