Nagpur: A teacher is an ’employee’ and is entitled to service benefits like gratuity, the Bombay High Court has ruled, rejecting arguments that teachers are not employed in ‘managerial’ or ‘administrative’ capacity.
The ruling came as a relief to a 65-year-old Pune-based college teacher after the Nagpur bench of the Court dismissed an appeal by an educational institution challenging an order for payment of gratuity claims to him.
“There is no escape but to hold that a teacher is an ’employee’ within the meaning of Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and hence, its provisions are applicable to him,” a single-judge bench of the court comprising Justice Ravi Deshpande observed here.
Noting that the Legislature has amended the definition of ’employee’ under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, with effect from April 3, 1997, the High Court said this is in tune with the observations made in a Supreme Court judgment. “The objects and reasons of such an amendment make the definition of the legislature very clear — to apply the provisions of the Act to teachers also,” it said. The High Court also mentioned that the amended definition is wide enough to cover the category of teachers for the purpose of applicability of the Act. “There is no challenge to the judgements and orders passed by the authorities (controlling and appellate) on merit. Hence no fault can be found with the view taken by the authorities,” it said.
The Court dismissed the petition filed by Vidarbha Youth Welfare Institution (Society), an educational institution, challenging the order of Assistant Labour Commissioner (controlling authority), Amravati, directing it to pay a gratuity of Rs 3.5 lakh with interest amounting to Rs 1.2 lakh to Pradip Kumar Lambhate.
The judge also asked the petitioner society to pay an additional Rs 27,872 as interest at 10 percent per annum.
The Pune-based teacher was appointed as Principal by the petitioner society in its social work college on May 10, 1995. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on May 31, 2005. Citing provisions of the Gratuity Act, he then applied to the Controlling Authority seeking a directive to the petitioner society to pay gratuity along with the interest.
His application was allowed by the controlling authority while the appellate authority dismissed the society’s appeal.
The Society then moved to the higher judiciary contending that teachers are not employed in ‘managerial’ or ‘administrative’ capacity.
And occasionally, even if they do some administrative work as part of their duty, they cannot be held employed in either capacity since their main job is to impart education, it submitted. (PTI)
