IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 17268 of 2001(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. JAGADAMMA, VALLUVEEDU, EAST PATTOM, PATTOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN SRI.D.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, KOLLAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, ARYA CENTRAL SCHOOL, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY FOR R2 SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH FOR R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P. NO. 17268/2001. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITY DT. 25-10-1999. EXT.P2 ORDER OF R1 DT. 21-7-2000. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 17268 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 25th September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a teacher in the nursery section of the 2nd respondent's school. She retired from service. Thereafter, she filed an application before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to pay her gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The same was allowed by Ext. P1 order, whereby the controlling authority directed the 2nd respondent to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 41,351/- as gratuity. That order was challenged by the 2nd respondent before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in which the Appellate Authority passed Ext. P2 order holding that in view of various decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject, a teacher is not an employee as defined in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to payment of gratuity. The petitioner is challenging that order in this original petition. 2. The only question arising for consideration before me is as to whether a teacher in a school is an employee as defined in the Payment of Gratuity Act so as to enable such a teacher to claim gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. That question is squarely covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Association v. Administrative Officer & others, AIR 2004 SC 1426, wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held that the teachers are not employees as defined in the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore they are not entitled to O.P. No. 17268/2001. -: 2 :- the benefit of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. In view of the above decision, there is no merit in this original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/