IN THE HIGH COUKT OFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ifrit Petition No: 4iAOi oJT 2002 Petitioner : y.v ^y^ \r" The Board o£ Secondary Education and T.T.M.P Church o£ North India, Through its secretary 2131 Napier Tovn, Jabalpur (M.P) The Principal, St Paul's Higher Secondary School, Byron Bazar, Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh. Respondents: ^ :!!ifc ^s. 'ms. ^ .: re) /•"N 'il ^•s'ff. SwU ^..^ ,'v<' -Versus- 1. The Controlling Authority under payment o-C Gratuity Act 1972/Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Dist.Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Charan Ajeet Singh S/o Sri Jeevan singh , Resident of Chhotapara , Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Addl. Tehsildar, Mn<>n<.i»J^,,^Raipur, Dist. Chhattisgarh. ^c.lcAJfr-f-^nffe<_ — .„ ._„ - - __ /(S^LI. ^ f... ^fiftS'i s<:afe® of_cl-thattl.3garhs ^ ^8^1 itpetition under artiole 7 thro,^ , secretaxy Separtmeut Tndia for issuance of approp S.K.s. MarA-alaya, fisfct eto. of lab Oa<n- tr.o, • ,.••;.):?,;;• ~v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Siagle Bench: Hon'blc Mr. Justicc Satteh K. ^frihotii. Writ Petition No. 409 of 2002 Petitioneis The Board ofSecondary Education and another Versus Respondents The ControBing Auftiority-cum.- Labour Cominissioncr, yalpur aad othcrs Shri Saajay K. Aganval, Advocate for thc pctitioncrs. Shri N. K. Vyas, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER ( PasMd on this 26th Febnisiy, 2007) Thc foflowmg ordcr of fhc Court was passcd by Satish K. Agnifcotri, J. 1. The present petitioa filed by fhe petitksner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitutioa of India seeks a writ iu fhe nature of certioi'ari against tfae order dated 7.7.2000, passed by the ContToIling Auffaority i.e. Labour Coiiunissioner, Ghhattisgarh, Raipur, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act, 1972), in Case No. 81/P.G.A./2000 (Annexure P/2). 2. The admitted facts in nutsheU are that fhe respondent NQ.Z was ei&ployed as Teacher ia fhe petitioDjer No.2 School. Admittedfy, the said schoolwas faSty Govt. aMed i&stitution. The respondent No.2 was eiaployed sm.ee 1.7.1962 and on attamiag the age of supeiacuiuatiou he was terminated fi»mservice w.e.f. 30.6.1996. 3. The respondent No.2 was denied payment of gratuity under the provisions of fhe Act, 1972. Being a^deved the respondent No.2 ffled aa. application before the controllmg authority under the Payment of Gratuity Aqt, Raipur. The authorily aflser hearing bofh fhe parties by his order dated 7.7.2000 (Annexure P/2) aUowed fhe r; appUcatiou filed by fhe respondeut No.2 directing the respondents to pay grataity under the provisions of fhe Payiuent of Gratuily Act. 4. Being aggrieved fhe petitioners have filed ttus wnt petition praying for quashing ofthe order dated 7.7.2000 ( Annexurc P/2) passed by fhe controffing aufhorily. 5. Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, teamed counsel for the petitioners submits fhat in thc casc of Miss A. Suadarambal Vs. Govt. of Goa, Daicaa & Mii snd others (AIR 1988 SC 1700), wtuch was considcred iu thc casc of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Asss. Vs. AdmiBistrative OfBcer and others {(2004) 1 SCC 755), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that teacher' is not an 'einptoyee' under the provisions of the Act, 1972, heuce not entitted to gratuity, 6. In fhe present case, the questiou of law as to whefher a teacher is entifled to payinent of gratuity under thc prDvisions of fhe Act, 1972 is invoh^ed and fhe identical question of law waa considcred by thc Suprcmc Coiut iu Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachca's Assn.(Supra) and has held as under:- "24. The contentioa advanced fhat teachers should be treated as incliided in the expression '"unskffled or '"skiBed cannot, fherefore, be accepted. The teachers might have been itaparted tramin^ for teaching or there may be cases where teachera who are employed in primaiy schools are unteatned. A traiaed teacher is not described in. fhe - industrial field or service jurisprudence as a skflled em.ployee", Such adjective generalfy is used for aa employee doing manual or technical work. Similariy, the words "semi- skiUed" aad "unskiUed" are not understood in educational establishments as describuig nature of job of untraiaed ii5S teachers. We do not attach inuch importaace to fhe aiguiaents advanccd on fec question as to whether "skiBed , ''semi-skiU.ed'' aad "unakiUed1' qualify •the words •maauar, ''supcmsoiy^, "technical or "cterfcaT or the above words qualify ttie word "worte". Even if aU fhe words are read disjunctively or ia any other manner, traiacd or untrained teachers do not plainly answer aay of fhe descriptions of fhe nature ofvarious employmeata given-m. the definition cteuse, Trauied or untcamed teachers are not ''sIaHed", "semi- skilled", "unskiUed", ''manual1', ''supervisoiy", ''tecIuucaP or "clencar' employees. They are also not employed in "manageriar' or ''admiiustrative*' capacily. Occasionalty, evea if fhey do soine admiiustrative work as part of fheir duty with teaching, since their main job is impartmg education, thcy camiot be held eiuployed in "raaiiagerial or ''admiiustratiffe" capacity. Tfae teachers are cjtearly not i&tended to be covered by fhe definition ofemployee". 7. Learaed couasel for the petitioners cited a decision ofthfa Court in thc casc of Jawaliar Sin^i Ss&s Vs. Secretary, dihattisgurh Sifasfaan Samiti, Silaspiu & others { 2006 (III) MPJR-CG 102} in support offais submissions. 8. Having Iieard leamed counsel for (he parties, I am of the view that fhc ratio laid down by thc Hon'blc Suprcmc Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Prinary Teachers' Assn. (Supra) and by ttus Court in thc casc ofJawabar Siagh Bsrfs (Supra), is squarcly appiicabte to thc facts offhe prcsent case. Accordi&gly, the respondent No.2, wbo is a teacher, is not entitted to grant of gratuity undcr fhe Act, 1972. However, if auy payinent as yatuity has been inade to the respondeut No.2/teacher, the saiae shaU not be recoverable. 9. For <lie reasons stated above, the petitiou is allowed. The ordcr dated 7.7.2000 (Annexure P/2J is quashed. No order as to costs. Sdf- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge