The Warden & Cor respondent v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.SAMSON BABU Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SMTV.UMA DEVI The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTIC E JUWADISRIDEVI WRIT PETITION No. 31621 ot 2O11 1ST APRIL, 2026 Between The Warden & Correspondent St. George's Grammar School and another Petitioners AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Labour Employment & Training Department and 2 others ORDER: Respondents This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: '' ..to tsslte an appropriate rvrit more in the nature olrvrit of (lertiorari calling for the records pursuant to the Order dated 0i.09.201 1 passcd in P.G.No. I I ol 20 I 0 by the Lcarned ( ontrolling Authr-.rity under the payment of (iratuity Act, t972 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, I{yderabad and quash thc same and issue strch other tvrit or order or riircction...,, Heard Sri Ch.Samson Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the respondents 2 2

#3. Facts of the case

3.1. The 3d respondent, who was working as a teacher in the petitioner institution, retired on 30.09.2009, upon attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, lre approached the 2nd respondent seeking payment of a sum of Rs 2,93,685/- towards gratuity' purportedly under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act' placing reliance on the order dated 01.08.2007 passed by the Constitution Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W'P No' 12492 ot 2004. The said judgment categorically held that under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Labour Courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain claims of teachers working in unaided educational institutions and that such claims are required to be agitated before the competent educational authorities'

3.2 ln response, the petitioner institution filed its counter in P.G.No.,l 1 of 2010 on 24.02.2011 , specifically contending that any claim for gratuity under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act' must be preferred before the competent authority prescribed thereunder and notbeforetheLabourCourtfunctioningunderthePaymentof Gratuity Act. The petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Private 3 Primary Teachers' Association vs. Administrative Officerl , reiterating that the teachers are excluded from the ambit of "employee" under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, even after its amendment.

3.3 However, the Labour Court, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed orders on 06.11.2010, in favour of the 3'd respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent seeking reopening of p.G.No.1,l of 2010. Upon such reopening, the petitioner filed an additional counter and written submissions and arguments were duly advanced.

3.4 Despite the same, the 2nd respondent, without properly appreciating the legal position and the binding precedents, passed the impugned order, affirming the earlier order, dated 06.11.2010, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,93,695/_ to the credit of the 3'd respondent with the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Aclcum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour.

4.1 Learned counsel for the petifioners submits that the 2nd respondent failed to consider the petitioner's specific contention regarding the competent authority designated under Section 3 of G.O.Ms.No.'l , dated 01.01 . i 994 and erroneously assumed ' ntR 2ooa sc tazo 4 jurisdiction which it does not possess. The impugned order, \ therefore, suffers from lack of jurisdiction, non-consideration of binding precedent and misapplication of law. lt is further submitted that the 2nd respondent committed a grave error in entertaining the application filed by the 3'd respondent, who claimed to be a "workman" within the meaning of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1g72. The reliance placed by the 3'd respondent on the judgment in W.P. No. 12492 ot 2004 is wholly misplaced, as the said judgment merely directed payment of gratuity under the Andhra pradesh Education Act and did not extend the applicability of the payment of Gratuity Act to teachers.

4.2 The 2M respondent failed to consider the binding precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, wherein a Constitution Bench categorically held that a teacher does not fall within the definition of an "employee" under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Significantly, even after the amendment to the said provision, the position remains unaltered. However, this crucial aspect was not examined by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the impugned order directing deposit of Rs.2,93,685/- is wholly unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. t I I I 1 I I I i I i I I l i i i 5

#5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the decision relied upon by the rearned counser for the petitioners is no longer applicable in view of the payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 and placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court of rndia in Birta rnstitute of rechnorogy vs. The Sfate of Jharkhand & Ors in Civil Appeat No.2530 of 20122, whercin at para Nos.20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29 to 31, it was held as under -

#20. The shott question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the Courts below were justified in holding that respondent No.4 was entitted to claim gratuity amount frcm the appellant (employer) under the Act.

#23. As mentioned above, ahe issue in question was subject matter of the decision rendered in the case of Ahmedabad private primary Teachers' Associatio/, v. Administrative Otficet (supra). This Cou,t had examined the question in the tight of the definitio; of the word "employee', defined in Section 2(e) of the Act as ,1 stood then. The definition reads as uncler: "2. (e) 'employee' means any person (other than an aprentice) employed on wages, in any estabtishment, factory, mine, oilfielcl, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilied, semi_ skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical ir cteicat work, whether the terms of such employment are express or impiea, ana wh.ether or not such person is employed in a manigeriat o, actministrative capacity, but does not include any such pelon wno holds a post under the Central Governm"nt o, i St"t Govemment and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity-',

#25. The decision rcndered in Ahmedabad private primary Teachers, -ted Association v. Administrative Officer (supra), tnereioie, 'aefined Parliament to amend the definition ot .eiptoyee- is in_Section 2(e) of the payment of cratuity Ad ;y imenaiig'aA No. 47 of 2009 on 31.12.2009 with retrospective erfeit from is.o-1.'t ggz. 'zoloie; sccst: 6 26- tt is clear from the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Payment of Gntuit'l (Amendment) Bill, 2009 introduced in the Lok Sabha on 24.02.2009, which reads as under: "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AilD REASOI/S The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides for payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, po, ts, railway companies, shops or other establishment end for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Clause (c) of subsection (3) of section lof the said Act empowers the Central Government to apply the provisions of the said Act by notification in the Official Gazelte to such other establishments or class of eslablishments in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day preceding twelve months. Accordingly, the Central Government had extended the provisions of the said Act to the educational institutions employing ten ot more persons by notification of the Government of lndia in the Ministry of Labour and Employment vide number S.O- 1080, dated the 3rd April, 1997.

#2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Civil Aweal No. 6369 of 2001, dated the 13th January, 2004, in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association v. Administrative Officer [AlR 2004 Supreme Court 14261 had held that if it was extended to cover in the definition of 'employee', all kind of employees, it could have as well used such wide language as is contained in clause (0 of section 2 of the Employees' Proyident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 which defines 'employee'to mean any person who is employed tor wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with tha work of an establishment. lt had been held that nonuse of such wide language in the delinition of 'employee' under clause (e) of section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 reinforces lhe conclusion that teacheE are clearly not covered in the said definition.

#3. Keeping in view the obseryations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is proposed to widen the definition of 'employee' undet the said Act in order to extend the benetit of gratuity to the teachers- Accordingly, the Payment of Graluity (Amendment) Bill, 2007 was intrcduced in Lok Sabha on the 26th November, 2007 aN same was referred to the Standing Commiltee on Labour which made certain recommedations. After examining those recommendations, it was decided to give eftect to the amendment retrcspectively with effect from the 3rd April, 1997, the date on which the provisions of the said Act were made applicable to educational institutions.

#4. Accordingly, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2007 was withdrawn and a new Bill, namely, this Payment of Gratuity (Amenclment) Bill, 2009 having retrospective eftect was introduced 7 in the Lok Sabha on 24th February, ZOOI. Howevet, ctue to dissotution of the Fourteentn Lok Sabna, the said Bilt Lpsed. ln view of the above, it is considered necessary to bing the'present Bi .

#27. fhe definition of ,,employee,, as defined under Section 2(e) was accordingly amended with effect trom O3.O4.lgg7 retrospectively u-i!:^Paynent of the Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 (io. at ot 2009) published on Jl .12.2009.

#29. ln other words, the teachers were brought within the puNiew of "emptoyee" as defined in section 21e1 ofthe eaymeii [i eratuity Act by amending Act No. 47 of 2\og with ,etrosfectiri iffect tron 03.04.1997.

#30. fhe eftect ot the amendment made in the payment of Gratuity vide No. 4T of 2o\g on 31.12.200g was twoto, ti.' iirrr, ,n" law laid down by this Coutt in the case of AhmaOaOaO pii. Primary Teachers Association (supra) was no longer applicabte against the teachers, as if not rendered, and SeconJ, the teachers were held entiued to ctaim the amount ot grattiity- unaer the Payment ol Gratuity Act from their employq with eftect trom 03.04.1997.

#31. rn our considered opinion, in the tight ot the amendment made in the Payment of Gratuity. Act as detaitei above, ,etirnce placed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant lemptiyer) on the decision of Ahmedabad private primary reachers, Assoc; ation v. Administntive officer (supra) is whofiy m.ispraced and ao"" ni i.ip the appefiant in any manner. lt has lost its binding effect. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

#6. A perusal of the record reveals that this Court has dismissed the present writ petition on 07.03.2012, holding that there are no merits in the writ petition and directed the petitioners herein to pay gratuity to the 3d respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, the petitioners filed Writ Appeal No.481 of 2012 betore the Hon, ble Division Bench of this Court. The 8 Hon'ble Division Bench, vrde order, dated 03.07.2012 remitted the writ petition, for fresh consideration, to examine whether respondent No.3 herein, falls within the definition of a "workman" under the Act' It is pertinent to mention the definition of a "workman" in this context, which is as follows: lJnder Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an employee (wortman) is defined as any person' other than an apprentice, employed for wages to do skitled, semi-skilled, unskilled, manual' supevisory, technical, or clerical work. This app"es across factories' mines, potts, and shops, regardless of whether they work in managerial or adm i nistrative capacities'

#7. This Court, upon perusing the decision relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Birla lnstitute of Technology's case (2 supra), is of the opinion that the decision in Ahmedabad M' Primary Teachers'Assoclation's case (1 supra) is no longer applicable, in view of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act' 2009, whereby, Section 2(e) was retrospectively modified with effect from 03.04.1997, to include teachers, within the definition of "employee." Accordingly, the earlier exclusion of teachers has been legislatively removed and the said iudgment has lost its binding effect. Teachers are now entitled to gratuity under the Act and employers, including private schools' are legally obligated to pay such benefits. The constitutional validity and retrospective operation ofthe200gAmendmenthavebeenupheld'therebyaffirmingthe earlier decision granting gratuity to the teacher' 9

#8. In view of the above findings,'this Court holds that there are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioners herein are directed to pay gratuity to the 3'd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) months, from the date of receipt of a coPY of this order.

#9. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. sD/- s. MALLTKA ASSISTAN\ RJUNA RAO REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SMT JUSTICE JUWADT SR|DEVI (For Her Ladyships Kind Perusal) To, 1- The Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment and Training Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

#2. The Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1912 and Asst. Commissioner of Labour lll, Karmika Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

#3. 11 LR Copies 4. The. Under S^ec1e.tary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

#5. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Buildings, Hyderabad. Association, Library, High Court

#6. One CC to SRI CH.SAMSON BABU, Advocate [OpUC] 7. One CC to SMT V.UMA DEV|, Advocate tOpUCl 8. One CC to SRt P.V.SURYA NARAYANA, Advocate tOpUCl 9. Two ccs to GP FoR LABouR, High court for the State of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

#10. Two CD Copies BSR GJP <!_'!-F=l--r":-n.!-E+--*. - '-'*i-y - z --J--.::..:.:' HIGH COURT DATED: 0110412026 ORDER WP.No.31621 of 2011 ) 1t i- ,9 * \ ,,i ( 1 lpil 1A26 ') icliF.o * { a- ?, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS LaPr't-l@ 4( w rr-r\* \r-a i .i