•a-1? -? ^ c BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER VERSUS _-L(e)^____ W.P. NOT ^'/2002 Ku. Premlatha Bharghav Retd. Teacher, R/o A^TKranti Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ...^M^^ r^w'^y : 1. The Appellate Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972/ Dy.Labour Commissioner, Kailashpuri, Raipur. 2. The Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. TheManager, St.Joseph Convent Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^; StateofChhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Labour Deptt. pX.Bhavi^n, Raipur. / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMOUS OF CERITIORARY OR ANY OTHER NATURE OR DIRECTION OF UKE NATURE. ^ yi'F^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sia^le Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agaihotri. Writ Petition No. 1093 of200_2 Petitioner Kii. Premlafha Bharghav Versus Respondents The Appellate Aiithority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 aad others Stiri N. K. Vyas, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Neeraj Choiibey, Advocate for fhe Respondent No,3. Shri Siiiiil Otwaiii, Paael lawyer for tlie Respondent No,4. ORAL ORDER (27th March, 2006) The foUo\viag order of fhe Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1, The present petition filed by fhe petitioner iinder Articles 226/227 offhe Constitution oflndia seeks awrit ixi fhe natiire of certiorari ^ainst flie order dated 28,2.2002, passed by the appeUate autihiority ie, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Region, Raipiir, zinder fhe Paymeat of Gratiiity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act, 1972), m Appeal Case No. 2/P.G.A./01. 2. The admitted facts m niitsheU are that the petitioner was employed as Teacher ia the Respondent No,3 SchooL Admittedfy, fhe said school was fuUy govt. aided mstitution. The petitioner retired from ser^ice on 30th June, 1998 on attainiag the age of superanniiation. (W 3. The petitioner was denied paynient of gratuiily iinder the provisions ofthe Act, 1972. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appllcation before the controUing aufhority under fhe Paynient of Gratuity Act, District- Bilaspiir. The azitliority after hearing both fhe parties by his oider dated 3.1.2001 (Annexure P/IV) atlowed fhe application filed by the petitioner directing the respondents to pay gratuity under fhe provisions of flie Payment of Giutaity Act. 4, Beuig aggrieved, fhe respondent No.3 ffled aa appeal under Section 7(7) of fhe Act, 1972 being Appeal Case No. 2/PGA/01 before the appellate aufliority i.e, Deputy Labour Conimissioner, Chhattisgarh Regiou, Raipur. The leanied aufhority by his order dated 28.2.2002 (Annexurc P/I) aUowed fhe appeal of fhe respondents holdiag fhat fhe petitioner, herein, being a teacher, is not entitled to gi^tuity under fhe Act, 1972. 5. Beiiig aggrieved fhe petitioner-teacher has filed this writ petition praying for quashmg ofthe order dated 28,2.2002 passed by fhe appellant aufhority. 6, Shii N, K. Vyas, leamed couiisel for the petitioner placed reUance on fhe decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Pffimary Teachers^ Assa. Vs<. Admiaistrative Officer aisd others {(2004) 1 SCC 755 ) aad further ia fhe case ofRajasthaa Welfare Society Vs. State of Rajasthan { (2005) (5) SCC 275} wherein flie benefit of gratuity was extended to the eniployees of the aided educational iiistitutions under section 16 of fhe Rajasthaa Non-Gtoveniinent Ediicational Institutions Act, 1989 and Rzile 82 of the Rajasthan Non-Govemmient Ediicational Institiitions (Recoguition, Graat-ia-Aid and Seryice Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993. 7. Learaed coiiasel for fhe petitioner furfher reUed upon a decision of this Court dated 1.8.2005 passed in W.P.No. 2062/2004 (Administmtor, Ladhidi Multipurpose Higher Secondaiy School, Chirmid & anotlier Vs. Smt Viddyavati Chatiirvedi & aiiother), The facts of fhat case are dtfferent as tiie paynient of Grattiity to the Principal was mvolved in fhat case aad this Court has held fhat fhe Prmcipal woulcl not be held.to be a teacher for fhe pzirpose of the Act, 1972, as such he shaU be deemed to be aa employee for the purpose offhe Act, 1972. 8. In fhe present case, flie question oflaw as to whether a teacher is entitled to payment of gratiuty under fhe provisions of the Act, 1972 is iavolyed aad fhe identical question oflaw was considered by fhe Supreme Court ia Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Ass2£.(Supi^i) and has held as under:- "24. The contention advaD^ced fhat teachers should be treated as iacliided m fhe exprcssion aunskiUeda? or "skiUed" caanot, fherefore, be accepted. The teachers might have beeu imparted trainmg for teaching or fhere may be cases where teachers who are eniployed in. prmiary schools are untrained. A traiaed teacher is not described m fhe mdustrial field or service jiirispnidence as a "skilled employee", Such adjective generally is used for an employee doiag maaual or technical work. Similarly, the words "semi- skiUed" aad aunskiUed'? are not understood ia educational estabUshments as describing natzire of job of untrained teachers. We do not attach inuch importaace to fhe argiiments advanced on fhe question as to whether "skUled", "semi-skilled" and <<iinskffled?? qiiatlfy fhe words "HiaiiuaT, ^supervisoxy^, "technicaF or <tfclericalw or the above words quallfy the word aworkw, Eveu if all fhe words are read disjunctively or ia any oflier manner, trained or untraiaed teachers do not plaialy answer aay of the descriptions offhe nature ofvarious einploynients given iu fhe definition clause. Trained or iintramed teachers are not "skmed", "semi-skmed", "imskffled", "manual", <ysupervisoiy>^ ^technicaT or <tfclerical>? eniployees, They are also not employed in <<manageriaT or <tfadmuiistrative5> capacity. OccasionaUy, even if fhey do some adininistrative work as part of their diity with teachiag, siace their niaia job is iDipartiag education, fhey cannot be held employed in. "maiiageriar or "admiiaistrative^ capacity. The teachers are clearty not iatended to be covered by the definition of "employee". However, the Suprenie Cozirt ia para 26 has niade it cleai' that fhe States are frce to fraoie separate statates, niles aiid regzilations grmitmg fhe benefit of gratuity to tihie teachers in educational tastitzitions which are niore or less beneficial than fhe gratiuty benefits provided under the Act, 1972. 9. Leanied couusel for fhe respondents submits fhat fhe petitioner beiag a teacher is not entifled to grattiity under fhe provisions of the Gratuity Act and fhe State Govemment has not fraraed aay statiite, rules or regulations, which provides for payment of gratuity. The case of the State of Rajasthaa Welfare Society (Supra) is not appUcable to the facts of fhe present case as ia that case the State of Rajasfhaa has provided ia fhe Rajasfhaii Non- Goverara-ent Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and fhe Rajasfhaa Non-Govemment Educational InstitoLitions (Recognitiou, Grant-ia-Aid and Serurice Coaditions etc,) Riiles, ^ 1993 for graat of gratuity to the employees of govt. aided educational uistitutions. 10. Haviag heard leanied coiinsel for fhe parties, I am of the view fhat the ratio laid down by the Supreiae Court m Ahmedabad Pvt. Prlmsury Teachersl> Asss. (Supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of fhe present case. Accorduigly, fhe petitioner who is a teacher is not entifled to graat of gratuity under the Act, 1972. However, fhe goverainent is expected to consider observations of fhe Suprciae Coiirt made in para 26 of fhe judgment passed m Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers^ Assii.(siipya) for having a separate legislation for fhe teachers ia this regard. 11, For the reasons stated above, fhe petition is disniissed. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur