TV: WS9 »» ,'r.a INTHE HIGH COUKT OFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ifrit Petition No: l-f0~~l °S 2002 Petitioner : ^s ^••^ •S^:!^-' .••••'" x:sA ••" The Board of Secondary Education and T.T.M.P Church o-f North India, Through its secretary 2131 Napier Town, jabalpur (M.P) The Pdncipal, St Paul's Higher Secondary School, Byron Bazar, Raipur, Oist. Raipur Chhattisgarh. -Versus- RBspondents ::-^ . ^ ,:i,.l.i:.'!!':'r> 5? ^ y ^ ...s/^ :lt petition under <urtiolB3fS The Controliing Authority under payment of Gratuity Act 1972/Asstt. Labpur eommissioner, Dist.Raxpur Chhattisgarh. Bhusan Lal Cbaturvedi S/o Late Sri Tulsi Prasad Chaturvedi , Resident o-f Hadhuri sitalla Mandir Harg , Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. . Addl. Tehsiidar, ^i-(ntt~ftJ<,^a.i£yr(_Dist. Chhattisgarh, P?.?pi 2-^(A?02 Endia for IsBuance of <us>rQB Afi^__ @) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Siagle Bench; HonTalc Mr. Justicc Satteh K. Agaihotri. Writ Petition No. 407 of 2002 Petitioners The Board ofSecondaiy Educatiouand anothcr Versus Respondents The ControBmg Authority-cum- Labour Conanissioncrc Kaipur and othcrs Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, Advocate for thc pctitioncis. Shri N. K. Vyas, Advocate for fhe respondent No.2. OR D E R ( Passed on this 25th Fchniaiy, 200fi) Ttic followiug ordcr of tfac Court was passcd by Satteli K. Agaihota-i, J, 1. The prcseut petition ffled by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. of India seeks a writ in fhe nature of certioran agaiust fhe order dated 7.7.2000, passed by the CoiitioUing Authority Le. Labour Commissioaer, Chhattisgarh, Raipiu, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the Act, 1972), in Case No. 73/P.G.A./2000 (Annexure P/2). 2. The admitted facts m nutsheU are fhat the rcspondent No.2 was employed as Teacher ia fhe petitioner No.2 School. Admittedfy, the said school was fulfy Govt. aided institution. The respondent No.2 was employed siace 1,7.1962 and ou attaining fhe age of superannuation he was tenninated fix)m ser>dce w.e.f. 30.4.1998. 3. The rcspondent No.2 was denied payment of gratuity under fhe provisions of ttte Act, 1972. Being aggrieved fhe respondent No.2 filed an application before the controHuig authority under the Payment pf Gratuity Act, Raipur. The authorily after heariug bofh the parties by his order dated 7.7.2000 (Annexure P/2) aUowed fhe ~? appUcation filed by the respoudeat No.2 diBectmg the rcspoadents to pay gratuity uader the provisions of the Paymeat of Giatuily Act. 4. Being aggrieved the petitioners have fUed tihis writ petition praymg for qi.iasbiag of the order dated 7.7.2000 ( Aiuiexure P/2) passed by the controUing authority. 5. Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, leamed counsel for fhe petitioners submits that in thc casc of MIss A. Suadarambal Vs. Govt. ot Goa, Damas & Dia aad others (AIR 1988 SC 1700}, whlch was considcrcd m thc casc of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Assn. Vs. Adsainistrative OfBee? aad otbers { {2004} 1 SCC 755}, the Hoa'ble Supreme Court, held fhat 'teacher' is not an 'emptoyee' under fhe provisions of the Act, 1972, hence not entltied to gratuity. 6. In the present case, fhe questiou oflaw as to whether a teacher is entitled to payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Act, 1972 is iuvolved and fhe identKal question of law was considered by (hc Suprcmc Court m AIuaedabad Pvt. Primary Teacha-s Assn.(Supra) and has held as under:- "24. The coatention advauced that teachera should be treated as uicluded in the expression unskiBed or "skffled" cannot, fhercfore, be accepted. The teachers might have been imparted traming for teaching or there may be cases where teachera who are cmployed in priinary schools are untrained. A trained teacher is not described in the . mdustrial field or service jurisprudence as a "skiDed eniployee'. Such adjective generaUy is used for an employee doing mauual or technical work. Sinularly, the words semi- skffled*' and ''unsldUed" are not uinderstood in educational establishments as describing aature of job of unteained teachers. We do not attach much importance to fhe arguiaents advanced on the question as to whcfher "skffled", "semi-skiHed" and "unsteiUed" quaiify fhe words '"maauar, supervisory", technical or "clericaT or fhe above words qualify the word "work". Even if aU the words are read disjiuictivety or in any ofher manner, trained or untramed teachers do not plaialy answer aay ofthe descriptions ofthe nature ofvarious eiaployments given in the definition clause. Tiained or unteained teachers are not "skffled", "semi- skiUed , "unsldBed", 'maauaT', "supervisoiy^, ''techrucar or '"clericaF' employees. Thcy are also not employed in "maDageriaP or 'admuustratwe" capacity, Occasioiially, even if they do sotae admmistrative work as part of their du<y vrifh teacliing, siuce their maia job is imparting education, they cannot be held employed in ''manageriaT' or "admuiistiative" capacity. The teachers are clearfy not intended to be covered by the definitkin ofemployee". 7. Learaed counsel for the petitioners cited a decision offhis Court in fhc casc of Jawa&ar Singh Bais Vs. Secretary, Chlirttls^rh Sibs&an SamiU, Bilaspur & others { 2006 (III) MPJR-CG 102$ m support ofhis submissions. i. Having heard leamed coiuisel for the parties, I am of the view that fhc i-atio laid down by thc Hon'blc Suprcmc Court ia AIunedabad Pvt. Primaa'y Teachers' Assn. (Supra) aad by this Court iu thc casc ofJawahar SIngh Bais (Supra), is squarcly applicablc to thc facts offhe present case. Accoidiagly, the respondent No.2, who is a teacher, is not entifled to grant of gratuity under fhe Act, 1972. However, if any payment as gratuity has been made to the rcsponcient No.2/teacher, ftie saine shall not be recoverabk. / 9. For fhe reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. Tfae order dated 7.7.2000 (Annexure P/2) is quashed. No oider as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge