^ ^^^i^^KK WS^^K-!^S: '/ ]N THE mGH C(:®RT QF JUDIi^TURE AT BHASPUR tf.P.;:.N6.J-^2-8fe.o^2QOtS: :• ' '':%J1r Pe't-itioners r'-^ J^v. ^^ J^l^.^ f' vy o7' «?J^'.-? -. aiF ..•' , . <• l.'y . Board 01 segondary Educati.fin^^ 1 •'yhrough j-ts^secretary, M. KS'.N. I'., •• Saoiti. (M.E.;t;::;. —'%:-' '; c/o. Salem English School, Raipur Tahs. & Distt. Raipur {C.G.). ' 2..,'.,ISalelttEngIl3h School, through its ^.^fpincipal, Raipur , Tah.s Dlstt. -;gSRaJ.pur;(C.G.) - ^ . ^^i ^ RetSponcients Vs... l.JSI '"e^s^^ Bhe Appetlate authority-Gum-daputy ^SSbour eoimnisstoner, Raipur, Ipsfft. 'Raipyr (C.G.) •: 2. •;:s!I*fie controlling authority under ;^S ^..sThs payment of gratuity ftct, Raigur^ ^Biylslon,. Raipur (C. G.) ^,WK * : :1:';^?::: •3. sgfflt:. T. Parera,. • . • , ' :^Sl '••ttirough Shri R.N.Vyag, ftdyocata, ' g 'yiyekanand Nagar, Raipurl(C.G.) ' WRIT PETITION UNDER^RTagljES 226/227 OF THE CQSalTUTION OF "ISDIA FOR IISSQJ^m.DK,YABPRDPRIAT&,- W'RIT,' ::tflSFS, •-, ORBER BIRECTION ETC. .:l^-pKgl..l';': . : . "; ; • v :i \hT . • ~- ^" Particulars^Qi6s;tsitiB^ERS^J-tidners: As;Bni&;feieinlea''in the cause titte. Particulars",QiE'y|sti®,,^iEe;gRpndents: , ; . ! sKs^ LJaenfci:ORg|it3-n Yt&e eaus^,;Mt;-I.e • "^^:SS^il f- N'N: MGH COURT £)FGHHA3T*ISGARH AT ES1.KSWK Sin^eBeach: Hon'bfcMr. Justicc&rtiahK.^BUK»ttt;fs Writ PetitisnNo. 1286 of2001 Petitioners BoaFdofSecontIaryEducationaaid anoflier Veisus Respondents Thc AppeHate AulIiority-cum-Depuly L^»ouTCOminissioncr,K8Upurand otfaers Shri SaajEy K. Agarwal, AdvoCate for fhe petitioners. Shri N. K. Vyas, Advocate forthe respomlent No.3. OK^UB^K ( Passed on t.his 36& PBbroary, 200^) ••••t^ Thc foUowing ordcr of Ihc Court was passcd by Satteh K. Agay»otrl,J, 1. The present petition fited by fhe petitioner uader Articles 2267227 of the GoastitutiQn of India sccks a writ m fhe nature ofcertaorari against the oider dattii 7.3.2001, passed by the appeUate authority i.e. Deputy Labour Comiaissioner, Cfafaattisgarh, Raipur, undcr ttic Payment of Giatuity Act, 1972 (for short fhe Act, 1972), ia AppeaICase No. 18&/P.G.A,/99. 2. The admitted facts in nutsheU are that the respoadent N6.3 •was employed as Tcacher in fhe petitioner No.2 Schcwl. /Uhnittedfy, the said school was firily Govt. aMed institutiou. The rcspondent No.3 was einplpyed sinee 30.9»1974and he was teraanated fiom semcc w.e.f 30.4.1991. 3. The respondent No.3 was denied payment of gratuity uBder fhe provisions of fhe Act, 1972. Being a^pieved fhe rcspondent No.3 filed an appIiGation. be&re fhe c»ntrollti^ authority under the Payment of Giatuity Act, District- Bilaspur. The auttionly after —:./ "S^6T 'VXV aq»jo saoisuQid aqi .ispan aa&3{Sca3 vas ^ou 8mpioq jsq3ea» aq» cq paiaap SBM ^nqBig jo •®3aaqAqaiaqA { £32,338 T (frOOZ)} »*aq:»opna »3^®a&BB.qsiaiBipv'SA 'BSSV flsaviasaj. ABiniid 'IM lliEqBpanniv jo OSBO oqt 01 paiopisaoa vsaq SBII ^.idns) iBqiHB»pBn8*V<*lNJO :1SB3 3IO "F noispop aq^ iBip K)imqns siaucniipd sq^ soj lasTnioo paaiBai '{BAieSv "X ^BfttBS uqs '9 •SftusffftceyxBgaSSB aift Aq passed Z66l"£"ie L/d Mn:s rav) IOOS"€"Z Pa»Bp -lapao avQ. pae (fr/d amxamiv) eeeT-s'OZ Pa?BP J3PI° 31BJ°^TOIISBI* •IOJ SatSe.id uoti.i^ad 'J.UM Sfff^ pifQ SA^ sjaaop.p.ad aip paAauSBe 8iiiag •3 •ti6\. €^3V wy. japun Ainq.'eiS c^ pap^a ym si 'jaiqoBat B Smaq 'Tnaaaq 'jgaoRpad aq> *Z^,6I W 8W 3° suoisiAcud aq} -tapan ,3aAo[dui3, ue »oa si ^aqaeat, iBip p[3q SBA fl maiaqA fooAT 08 88GT yiV) siaiRO ysu nia ''»vsvsea *BOO jo IAOO •SA iBqniBmpnng "V «*UBm :(-mo3 sinaidng ^p jo iioieioap SIR tououSi (siiroQaddB) siaaopflad sip jo iBadds gq^ paseimsip {^{^ asmiamxv) TOOS'e'2, pajBp jspio raq yCq ^uoqi.nB paujeai aqj, 'jndiBy 'qjBgstH.Bqqo '.lauoiSGniroico jnoqe^ ^ndaQ •ai ^fawfyoB sfBffaddv aq^ wxpq QQ/vod/Qgz -ON aseo leaddv ftnaq g;^6I '^V am jo (^2, Ut^oag .ispmi feaddv UB pa®;pcq s-iauCTfpsd aq^ 'paAsuSSB gmsg -t. •piannEBdjo aiBpiBtipB aip gp japio sq^jo atBp aq^ taag IUILUUB •rad %OT JO al-®t3W VB fswafm Tg.ua. t3V ^Htq®i0jo taaittiSBd gvQ. jo suOTSiAaid ai^ .ispun ^1148.18 &d ot si.uapaodsai aip. SI:(!:PaIIP e"°Nfapnodsw sny. Iq pag. vaffBsviSSB aiy. pajssssfse (^/d ajnxamiv) 6661 "S'OC PatBP -I3P10 SItt •^<l saRJBd 3Tp. iRoq SauBaii 7. luthe present case, fhe question of law as to whefher a teacher fa entifled to payment of patuity unidcr fhe provisioas of fhe Act, 1972 is iavotred and ffae iilentical question of law was considered by fhc Suprcmc Court ia Ahmedadmd Pvt. Prtaiary Tewdiers Assn.(Supra) aad has heM as luider:- "24. Tfae contention advaaced fhat teachcrs ahould be treated as included in && cxpression "unslaBed" or "sldlted" canuot, therefore, be accepteri. The teachers might haare been imparted tEaming for tcachmg or ttiere may be c^ies where teachers who are employed in primary schools are unteuned. A tFained teacher is . not describcd m tfae iadustrial field or servfce jurisprudencc as a "skflled emptoyee". Suclt adjcetive generaUy is.iised &r an cmplDyee doing manual or tecluucal work. Simflaity, fhe words 'semi- sldlled" and "unskiDed" aic not underatood in. eduffatioDal establishments as SsactSasxg natuae of job of untraiaed teachcis. Wc do not attach inucli nnportaucue to fhe arguments advanccd on the questioa as to whefher <rskiBed", '"semi-skakd" and "unskated" qualify fhe wonls "inanuar, 'supervisoiy", "'fecbaasaX' or *clericaF or the abcwe words qualify tbe word "work". Bven if att fhe words are read disjunctwely or iu any ottier maimer, traiacd or untrained teachers do not plainfy answer any offhe dcscriptfons offhe nature ofvarious emptoyments gwea m fhe defiaition clause. Traincd or uatrained teaGhers are not ''sldDed", "semi- sldDed", ''unsldUcd", 'mantiaP, *supemsoiy", 'technicar or '"clericar employees. They ace also not employed m ''maiiagenai' or ''admmisteative" capacity. OccasibnaQy, even if fliey do soine admnusteativc work as part of thfiir duty witfa teacfan^, since flieir inaia job is imparting edMcation, fhey cannot be 'beVt. einployed in 'manageiiar or '"admiaisteatwe' capacity. Tfae tcachers are clraify not mtended tp be covcred by fhe dcfuutua of'cmpkyee'. '^^[Li^^^^^^ii^^i^^^^^^^j 4-- Howevcr, fhe Suprenie Court iu para 26 has made it clear that fhe States are free to frame separate statutcs, rutes and regulations grantmg fhe benefit of yatuily to fhe tcachers m. educattonal institutions which are inore or tess beneficial fhaa the gratuily benefits prowided under ftie Act, 1972. 8. Learricd counscl for the petitioners cited a decisioa offhis Court ia fhc casc of Ja?Brahar Btadi Bals Vs, Secretary, caihattis®uh Sihshan Samiti, Bilaspnr & othCTS {2006 (III) MPJR-CG 102$ m support ofhis submissious. 9. Having heard learaed eounsel for fhe parties, I ain of fhc view that thc ratio laid down by thc Suprcmc Covcrt in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers* Assn. (Supra) aad by this Court in tfac casc. of Jawahar Sing& Bals (Supra), issquarcly applicablc to thc facts of ftie preseiit case. Accbrdingly, the respondent No.3, who is a teEcher, is not eutifled to grant of patuily under thc Act, 1972. However, if auy paymcnt as p-atuily has been made to fhe respondent No.S/teacher, ttic same shaB not be recoverable. 10. For fh.e rcasons stated abowe, fhe petition is altowed. The order dated 20.5.1999 (Annexure P/4) and fhe order dated 7.3.2001 (Annexure P/7) are quashed. No order as to cosfs. Sd/- . . . . Satishl^Agmhotti %akur —— Jud8e ..^