Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972:
s.2(e) – Appellant is a premier technical educational Institute of repute in the country – Respondent no.4 joined the appellantInstitute as Assistant Professor – On superannuation, he made a claim for payment of gratuity amount – Entitlement for gratuity – Held: The definition of “employee” as defined under s.2(e) was amended with effect from 03.04.1997 retrospectively by Payment of the Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 (No. 47 of 2009) published on 31.12.2009 – In the light of the amendment made, the benefit of the Payment of Gratuity Act was extended to the teachers also from 03.04.1997 – In other words, the teachers were brought within the purview of “employee” as defined in s.2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act by Amending Act No. 47 of 2009 with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997 – Respondent no.4 is entitled to the payment of gratuity – Payment of the Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009.
Constitution of India:
Constitutionality of a statute – Appellant is a premier technical educational Institute – Claim made by a teacher of appellant-Institute for payment of gratuity – Appellant challenged the applicability of the Payment of the Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 (No. 47 of 2009) by which teachers were brought within the purview of “employee” as defined in s.2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act – The challenge was on the ground that the constitutional validity of Amending Act No. 47 of 2009 was under challenge in a writ petition, which was pending – Held: Pendency of any writ petition by itself does not affect the constitutionality of the Amending Act, and nor does it affect the right of teacher in any manner in claiming gratuity amount from the appellant(employer) under the Act – It is only when the Court declares a Statute as ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution that the question may arise to consider its effect on the rights of the parties and that would always depend upon the declaration rendered by the Court and the directions given in that case – Such was not the case in the instant matter – Plea rejected – Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.2(e).
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the light of the amendment made in the definition of the word “employee” as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act by Amending Act No. 47 of 2009 with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997, the benefit of the Payment of Gratuity Act was also extended to the teachers from 03.04.1997. In other words, the teachers were brought within the purview of “employee” as defined in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act by Amending Act No. 47 of 2009 with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997. [Paras 28, 29][973-E, F]
Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association v.
Administrative Officer and Others (2004) 1 SCC 755 : [2004] 1 SCR 470 – held inapplicable.
2. The appellant urged that the constitutional validity of Amending Act No. 47 of 2009 is under challenge in this Court in a writ petition, which is pending. It is only when the Court declares a Statute as being ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution then the question may arise to consider its effect on the rights of the parties and that would always depend upon the declaration rendered by the Court and the directions given in that case. Such is not the case here. [Paras 32, 34][974-B-D]
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.