Judgment · High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 26 Feb 2006
Outcome
Dismissed
The petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Leamed counselappearingforthepetitioner submitsfhatthe orderofthe Conteolling Authority is proper Emdlegal. The Appellate Authority^ought not to have interfered with the onlerpassedtoytheControUmgAzrthority. 5', The questioh of law asto whether a Teacher is entitied to gratuity under the prbvisions of the Act, 19'72 is no longer ?%$ m^na!.…
- Para 77. Accordirigly,! there is rio merit m this case. The petition is dismissed; No orderastocosts. l^ahu ^ Sd/'- Satish K. Agmhstri Judge ;'asif
Judgment
PreseritiShriPraffltBhaiatAdvoeafefbrffi^ ShnP.S.I^shy,^dYoc^%theresponderitNQ.l; ^ aORAI.Om»ER •• . (Passcd ciit titfs 23rd day flfJtriy, 2008) :::.- ;. . :; l.'%Wtheconsetrtof1toeparties, the^ffl
Inllieprese^ca^^ petitionerv^ a Teaehersuperan^ preferred an appliGation fe ContrcdlingAuthortty^ ^tte raspomleMs No. F fo ma&e^;^ dectsions ctflfie Supremsecrart ^the matteKpfM^^^^ ys.;;Goyt. of Gi»a,:D^an?&'®m^antf'ofhje]E^:s:'and^h^ M :1':';Triaiary:-!Teacher's:As^'^^;..Sji|^^ ^A]Ki9S8SG170ff i2 (20041 :SeC.T55;' ''<" :I1 .';., x
The responaent^No. 1 preferred ^ appeal^efere the Appellate Autliori^ TheAppeIlatBAuthQrilybyorderdafed 30.01.Q3(Anc^^ the appeal filed by the re^ondent NQ. 1 hoMing that^^^^te 'beiag a Teacher, is not entitled to gratuity under fhe provisions of fhe Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (forsfaort,^eAct, 1972"). HGnce^^^ 'petition.' '::. , . • ': ' : ''' - ' ' ;: ; ' 1' ::: 'i' ;:
Leamed counselappearingforthepetitioner submitsfhatthe orderofthe Conteolling Authority is proper Emdlegal. The Appellate Authority^ought not to have interfered with the onlerpassedtoytheControUmgAzrthority. 5', The questioh of law asto whether a Teacher is entitied to gratuity under the prbvisions of the Act, 19'72 is no longer ?%$ m^na!. The Supreme Court in the matters of Miss A. Suhdarmbal (supra) and Ahmedabad Pvfc PrmuryTeacher's As^ (supra) held that 'emplpyee under the provisions of the Ac4 1972, hence nat fintMetl to 'TeachCT gratuity. • • • :: : , ' ' .
Ttiis Court in the matter of fhe Board of Secondary Education and T.T.M.P. CUurch of North India and another Vs. The Controllin^ Authority under Pdyment of Gratuity Act ^ti' • • •' •-1- 1972./Asstt. Labour •.'..' .; . Gommissioner and others, also considered the same issue and in its brder dated 26-2-2006 held fhat the Teacher is not ®ntitledto' grant of gratuity undertheAcfc 1972. ^ -
Operative part
Accordirigly,! there is rio merit m this case. The petition is dismissed; No orderastocosts. l^ahu ^ Sd/'- Satish K. Agmhstri Judge ;'asif
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Payment ofGratuity Act, 1972; Pdyment of Gratuity Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 26 Feb 2006.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.