S_'£SS HIGH /GO-tJHI, OFroDlGATUSS_AI_JA,a!LiM. , ^^, Writ Pet.i'fcion N6. of 1997 PBSITiror UIIDBB AB'riOLE 226/227 ' OF IBS OONSTITU'TION CT':. ,INDIA i'B'FinONEH: J'awahar Singh 8a.is, S/oGeiy,is' re-bj-red leaoher . from Ohha-btisgarfa Higher Seoondary School, BilaspUE, res£denfe of 'BgT-vasi Kashyap ^Bada . Bilaspur. Vsrsys BSSPON2SNTS; 1"A'- v'^^' ^ 1. Seoretary,Ghfa attisgarh Sikshan Sami'fci, Bilaspur, /^?. She PrinoipaltOhhaf-fcis' ;arh Higher SgQoadary Sohool, Bilaspur. AF(? 22..02. •°i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SIagle Beach: Hon'ble Mr. Justtee Satteh K. AgnUiotrt. Writ Petition No. 2464 of 1997 Petitioner Jawahar Singh Vcrsus Respondents Secretaiy, Chhattisgarh Sikshan Samiti, Bitopur & anothcr Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioaer. Miss Sunita Jaia, Advocate for fhc respondents. ORAL ORDER ( 22nd Februajy, 2006) The foUowing order of (he Court was passed by Satlslt K. Agaihotri, J. 1. The present petition ffled by thc pctitkiner undcr Articles 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India seeks a writ iu the aatuu'c of certiorari against thc order dated 31.3.1997, passed by the appeBate aufhority i.e. Dcputy Labour Comnussioner, Chhattisgarh Region, Raipiir, under the Payinent of Gratuily Act, 1972 (for short fhe Act,l972), inAppealCase No. 16/P.G.A./96. 2. The adnaitted facts ia nutshcB are that the petitioaer was employcd as Teacher ia fhe Respondent No.2 School run by fhe Respondent No. l Sociely. Admittedty, the said school was fuUy govt. aided institution. The petitioner retired fix>ia sendce on 15th May, 1989 on attaining the ay of supcraanuation. Thereaftcr, the petitioncr was grantcd extension for a period ofone ycar. 3. The pctitioner was dcnicd pgyinent of gratuily under the provisions of the Act, 1972. Being aggrieved ttie petitioncr fifed an appUcation bcfore thc conta>Umg authority zmder the PaymcntofGrattuty Act, ^ District- BUaspur. The aufhorily after heartag both (he parties by his order dated 19.4.1996 (Anncxure P/4) aBowed the appUcation filed by fhc pctitioner directuig the respondents to pay gratuity uuder fhe provisions of the Paycaent of Gratuity Act wifh interest at fhe rate of 10% per amuuia from fhe datc of fhc ordcr tiU ftie actual date ofpaynaent. 4. Beiag aygnEved, fhe respondents have filed an appcal iinder Section 7(7) of fhe Act, 1972 bemgAppeal Case No. 16/PGA/96 before the appcUate authority ie. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattis^rh Rcgion, Raipur. The lcaraed aufhorily by his order dated 31.3.1997 (Annexure P/7) aUowcd fhe appcal of thc respondents holding that in view of fhe decision of fhe Supreiae Court in Mlss A. Sundarambal Vs. Govt. of Goa, Daman & Din aad others (AIR 1988 SC 1700) wherein it was held fhat 'teachcr* is not aa 'eniployee' undcr the provisions of the Act 1972, the petitioner, herein, being a teacher, is not entifled to gratuity iinder the Act, 1972. 5. Being a^ricved fhe petituner-teacher has ffled fhis writ petition piayuig for quashing of the order dated 31.3.1997 passed by fhe appellant aufhority. 6. Shri Ashish Sluwstava, leamed counsel fbr the petitioner subinits that fhe decision in fhe case ofMtssA. Snndarambal (suprsj has been considered in tfae case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Assa. Vs. Administorattve Olficer and others {(2004) 1 SCC 755 } whcreby benefit of gratuity was denied to fhc teacher holding not aa einployee under thc provisions of thc Act, 1972. Learaed coiuisel for the petitioncr fiirther rclies ou the dccision of •<- tfae Supreme Court in R(((asthan Welfare Soclety Vs. State of Rftfristhan {(2005) ^) SCC 275} wherein the benefit of gratuily was extended to fhe einployees of the aided educational institutfons under section 16 of the Rajasthaa Non-Govenunent Educatioiial Institutions Act, 1989 aad Riik 82 of the Rajasfhan Non- Goverument Educational Institutions (Recogmtion, Graat-in-Aid and Servicc Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993. 7. Lcaraed counsel for fhe pctitioner furfher relied upon a decision of this Court dated 1.8.2005 passed in W.P.Ko. 2062/2004 (AdDiuustra.tor, Ladhidi Multipurpose H^her Secondaty School, Chinniri & aapther Vs. Sint. VMldyavati Chatiuvedi & anofher). The facts of fhat case are diffcrent as the paynaent of Gratuity to the Principal was involycd ia that case and fhis Cozirt has held fhat the F>rincipal woiild not bc held to bc a teacher for fhe purposc offhe Act, 1972, as such he shaU be deeined to be an einployee for the purpose of fhe Act, 1972. 8. In fhe present case, fhc question of law as to whether a teacher is eatiflcd to payiuent of gratuity under the provisions of the Act, 1972 is involved aad the identical question of law was considered by the Supreme Court ia Aluaedabad Pvt. Primary TeachCTS Assn.(Supra) and Iias held as under:- "24. The contention advanced fhat teachers should bc trcated as uicluded in the cxpression "luiskiUed" or ''slaUed caanot, fhcrefore, be accepted. The teachere might have been unparted training for teaching or there inay bc cascs wherc teachers who are cinploycd ia primaiy schools are untraincd. A trained tcacher is not described in fhe iiidustrial field or service jurisprudeuce as a ''sldBed cmployee". Such adjcctive gpneiaBy is usedjfo^an einployec •t- r:l Bi douig maniifil or techiucal work. Sinularfy, the words "seini- skilled" and "unsldlled" are not understood in educational establishincnts as describing nature of job of luitrauied teachers. We do not attach niuch importance to the arguments advanced oa the question as to whether ''skiUed*, ''semi-skiUed'' aad '"unsldUed qualtfy fhe words ''maauaF', ''supervisoiy", ''technicar or "clerical" or the above words qualify the word 'tworK'. Evcu if aU the words are read disjunctivety or in any other manncr, traincd or untraiaed teachers do not plainly aaswer any ofthe descriptions ofthe nature ofvarious cinployincnts givcn in the definition clause. Tramed or unteained teachcrs are not skiBed", "semi- skiUed", ''unskiUed'', '"tnaniiaF', ''supcrvisory'^, '^echtUcaF or "clerical" employees. They. are also not emptoyed in ''manageriaP or ''admmistradve" capacity. Occasionalty, even if they do some admiiustrative work as part of fheir duty with teaching, siace fheir mam job is unparting cducatk)n, fhey cannot be held eiaployed in "manageriaF' or ''admiiustTative" capacity. The tcacheis are clearfy not iatended to be covered by the defiaition ofemployee". However, the Supreiae Court ia para 26 has inade it clear fhat the States are free to fi-anie scparate statutes, rutes and regulations granting the benefit of gratuity to fhe teachers ia educational institutions which are niore or less beneficial than (hc gratuity benefits pnsvided under fhe Act, 1972. 9. Leamed counsel for thc respondents submits fhat the pctitioner bcing a teacher is not cntitled to gratuity under the pnwisions of the Gratuity Act aud the State Goveminent has not fi-ained any statute, rulcs or regulations, which provulcs for payinent of gratuily. The case of fhe State of R^fasthan WeUtU'e Sodety (Supra) is not applicable to fhe facts ofthe prescnt case as in that case the State of Rajasthan has provided in the Rajasthaa Non- '^ h... ^• (i'- ^^••-^•^'-^ ^ns^s^l ^^^ti^, Gtoverument Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and the Rajasthan Non-Govenunent EducatioDal Institutions (Recognitk»n, Graat-ia- Aid and Semce Conditions ete.) Rutes, 1993 for grant of gratuity to the eniptoyees of govt. aided educational mstitutions. 10. Having heard lcaraed counsel for the parUes, I ain of the vsew fhat fhe ratio laid down by the Supremc Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Prfanary TeacliCTS* Assn. (Supr^ is squarely appUcable to fhe facts of the present case. Accordingty, fhe petitioncr who is a teacher is uot eatitled to grant of gratuity under the Act, 1972. However, fhe govenunent is expccted to consider observations of the Supreme Court inade in para 26 of the judgment passed ia AIuaedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Assa.(supra) for haviag a separate legislationfor fhe teachers in. fhis regard. 11. For the reasons stated above, fhe petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur "<-'