:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1384 OF 2008 Mrs. Joan Coelho ..Petitioner Vs. St. Anne’s Primary School Through the Head Mistress and ors. ..Respondents Mr. Alok Gupta i/by Mihir Desai for petitioner. Mrs. Anita Agarwal for respondent no.1. Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP for respondent no.3. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : February 29, 2008. Date : February 29, 2008. Date : February 29, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who is aggrieved by the concurrent view taken by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the Act) rejecting the petitioner’s claim for payment of gratuity under the said Act. 2. The petitioner was employed in respondent :2: no.1-school i.e. St. Anne’s Primary School which is run by the Provincial Society of the Cong. of Jesus and Mary at Pune and undoubtedly it is a private unaided primary school. She had served in the said school from 1/6/1981 to 31/1/2002 i.e. more than 20 years and, therefore, she approached the Controlling Authority under the Act. The Controlling Authority dismissed her claim by his order dated 29/4/2005 and the same view has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 4/7/2006 by dismissing the appeal. 3. The issue raised by the petitioner in this petition regarding the applicability of the Act to the teachers in private unaided schools is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers’ Association vs. Administrative Officer [AIR 2004 SC 1426], whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Head Mistress (Mrs.P.D’Souza) Fatimadevi English High School and ors. vs. N. Pereira and ors. [2002 III CLR 561] and more particularly to the notification issued by the Central Government on 3/4/1997. The :3: said notification reads as under:- "In exercise of the power conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (iv of 1972), the Central Government hereby specifies the educational institutions in which 10 or more persons are employed, or were employed on any day of the preceding 12 months, as a class of establishment to which the said Act shall apply with effect from the date of publication of this Notification provided nothing contained in this Notification shall affect the operation of the notification of the Ministry of Labour No. 5.0.259 dated 8.1.1982." 4. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the notification dated 3/4/1997 may support his case that the private unaided schools fall within the ambit of the term "establishment" and, therefore, the non teaching staff may have a claim for payment of gratuity under the said notification. :4: However, as noted earlier, the petitioner was a teacher and their Lordships in the case of Ahmedabad (P.) Primary Teachers’ Association have held that a teacher in private school does not fall within the ambit of the term "employee" as defined under Section 2(3) of the Act. The Authorities below have thus followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court and, therefore, there is no case made out to cause interference in the concurrent view taken by both the Authorities below under the supervisory powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)