Case: Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Association Vs. Administrative Officer

under S.1(3)(c) of the Act of 1972, is that such non teaching staff of educational institutions as answer the description of any of the employment contained in the definition Clause.2(e), would be covered by the provisions of the Act. The teaching staff being not covered by the definition of ‘employee’ can get no advantage merely because by notification ‘educational institutions’ as establishments are covered by the provisions of the Act. 21. Having thus compared the various definition clauses of word ‘employee’ in different enactments, with due regard to the different aims and objects of the various labour legislations, we are of the view that even on plain construction of the words and expression used in definition Clause.2(e) of the Act, ‘teachers’ who are mainly employed for imparting education are not intended to be covered for extending gratuity benefits under the Act. Teachers do not answer description of being employees who are ‘skilled,’ ‘semiskilled’ or ‘unskilled.’ These three words used in association with each other intend to convey that a person who is ‘unskilled’ is one who is not ‘skilled’ and a person who is ‘semi-skilled’ may be one who falls between two categories meaning he is neither fully skilled nor unskilled. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines these three words as under :- “Semi-skilled work. Work that may require some alertness and close attention, such as inspecting items or machinery for irregularities, or guarding property or people against loss or injury.Skilled work. Work requiring the worker to use judgment, deal with the public, analyse facts and figures, or work with abstract ideas at a high level of complexity.Unskilled work. Work requiring little or no judgment, and involving simple tasks that can be learned quickly on the job." 22. In construing the above mentioned three words which are used in association with each other, the rule of construction noscitur a sociis may be applied. The meaning of each of these words is to be understood by the company it keeps. It is a legitimate rule of construction to construe words in an Act of Parliament with reference to words found in immediate connection with them. The actual order of these three words in juxtaposition indicates that meaning of one takes colour from the other. The rule is explained differently: ‘that meaning of doubtful words may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it’. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh (8th Ed.), Syn.8 at pg.379).23. The word ‘unskilled’ is opposite of the word ‘skilled’ and the word ‘semi-skilled seems to describe a person who falls between the two categories i.e. he is not fully skilled and also is not completely unskilled but has some amount of skill for the work for which he is employed. The word ‘unskilled’ cannot, therefore, be understood dissociated from the word ‘skilled’ and ‘semiskilled’ to read and construe it to include in it all categories of employees irrespective of the nature of employment. If the Legislature intended to cover all categories of employees for extending benefit of gratuity under the Act, specific mention of categories of employment in the definition clause was not necessary at all. Any construction of definition clause which renders it superfluous or otiose has to be avoided.24. The contention advanced that teachers should be treated as included in expression ‘unskilled’ or ‘skilled’ cannot, therefore, be accepted. The teachers might have been imparted training for teaching or there may be cases where teachers who are employed in primary schools are untrained. A trained teacher is not described in industrial field or service jurisprudence as a ‘skilled employee’. Such adjective generally is used for employee doing manual or technical work. Similarly, the words ‘semiskilled’ and ‘unskilled’ are not understood in educational establishments as describing nature of job of untrained teachers. We do not attach much importance to the arguments advanced on the question as to whether ‘skilled’, ‘semi-skilled’ and ‘unskilled’ qualify the words ‘manual’, ‘supervisory’, ‘technical’ or ‘clerical’ or the above words qualify the word ‘work’. Even if all the words are reed disjunctively or in any other manner, trained or untrained teachers do not plainly answer any of the descriptions of the nature of various employment given in the definition clause. Trained or untrained teachers are not ‘skilled’, ‘semi-skilled’, ‘unskilled’, ‘manual’, ‘supervisory’, ‘technical’ or ‘clerical’ employees. They are also not employed in ‘managerial’ or ‘administrative’ capacity. Occasionally, even if they do some administrative work as part of their duty with teaching, since their main job is imparting education, they cannot be held employed in ‘managerial’ or ‘administrative’ capacity. The teachers are clearly not intended to be covered by the definition of ‘employee’. 25. The Legislature was alive to various kinds of definitions of word ‘employee’ contained in various previous labour enactment when the Act was passed in 1972. If it intended to cover in the definition of ‘employee’ all kinds of employees, it could have as well used such wide language as is contained in S.2(f) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Act, 1952 which defines ‘employee’ to mean ‘any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of (an establishment)’...... Non use of such wide language in the definition of ‘employee’ in S.2(e) of the Act of 1972 reinforces our conclusion that teachers are clearly not covered in the definition.26. Our conclusion should not be misunderstood that teachers although engaged in very noble profession of educating our young generation should not be given any gratuity benefit. There are already in several States separate statutes, rules and regulations granting gratuity benefits to teachers in educational institutions which are more or less beneficial than the gratuity benefits provided under the Act. It is for the Legislature to take cognizance of situation of such teachers in various establishments where gratuity benefits are not available and think of a separate legislation for them in this regard. That is the subject matter solely of the Legislature to consider and decide.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]6. The Act is a piece of social welfare legislation and deals with the payment of gratuity which is a kind of retiral benefit like pension, provident fund etc. As has been explained in the concurring opinion of one of the learned judges of the High Court ‘gratuity in its etymological sense is a gift, especially for services rendered, or return for favoursIt has now been universally recognized that all persons in society need protection against loss of income due to unemployment arising out of incapacity to work due to invalidity, old age etc. For the wage earning population, security of income, when the worker becomes old or infirm, is of consequential importance. The provisions contained in the Act are in the nature of social security measures like employment insurance, provident fund and pension. The Act accepts, in principle, compulsory payment of gratuity as a social security measure to wage earning population in industries, factories and establishments.7. Thus, the main purpose and concept of gratuity is to help the workman after retirement, whether, retirement is a result of rules of superannuation, or physical disablement or impairment of vital part of the body. The expression,itself suggests that it is a gratuitous payment given to an employee on discharge, superannuation or death. Gratuity is an amount paid unconnected with any consideration and not resting upon it, and has to be considered as something given freely, voluntarily or without recompense. It is sort of financial assistance to tide ever post retiral hardships and inconveniences.An educational institution, therefore, is annotified under S.1(3)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,Having thus compared the various definition clauses of wordin different enactments, with due regard to the different aims and objects of the various labour legislations, we are of the view that even on plain construction of the words and expression used in definition Clause.2(e) of the Act,who are mainly employed for imparting education are not intended to be covered for extending gratuity benefits under the Act. Teachers do not answer description of being employees who areThese three words used in association with each other intend to convey that a person who isis one who is notand a person who ismay be one who falls between two categories meaning he is neither fully skilled nor unskilled. TheLaw Dictionary defines these three words as underwork. Work that may require some alertness and close attention, such as inspecting items or machinery for irregularities, or guarding property or people against loss or injury.Skilled work. Work requiring the worker to use judgment, deal with the public, analyse facts and figures, or work with abstract ideas at a high level of complexity.Unskilled work. Work requiring little or no judgment, and involving simple tasks that can be learned quickly on the job.In construing the above mentioned three words which are used in association with each other, the rule of construction noscitur a sociis may be applied. The meaning of each of these words is to be understood by the company it keeps. It is a legitimate rule of construction to construe words in an Act of Parliament with reference to words found in immediate connection with them. The actual order of these three words in juxtaposition indicates that meaning of one takes colour from the other. The rule is explained differently: ‘that meaning of doubtful words may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with(See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh (8th Ed.), Syn.8 at pg.379).23. The wordis opposite of the wordand the wordseems to describe a person who falls between the two categories i.e. he is not fully skilled and also is not completely unskilled but has some amount of skill for the work for which he is employed. The wordcannot, therefore, be understood dissociated from the wordto read and construe it to include in it all categories of employees irrespective of the nature of employment. If the Legislature intended to cover all categories of employees for extending benefit of gratuity under the Act, specific mention of categories of employment in the definition clause was not necessary at all. Any construction of definition clause which renders it superfluous or otiose has to be avoided.24. The contention advanced that teachers should be treated as included in expressioncannot, therefore, be accepted. The teachers might have been imparted training for teaching or there may be cases where teachers who are employed in primary schools are untrained. A trained teacher is not described in industrial field or service jurisprudence as a ‘skilledSuch adjective generally is used for employee doing manual or technical work. Similarly, the wordsare not understood in educational establishments as describing nature of job of untrained teachers. We do not attach much importance to the arguments advanced on the question as to whetherqualify the wordsor the above words qualify the wordEven if all the words are reed disjunctively or in any other manner, trained or untrained teachers do not plainly answer any of the descriptions of the nature of various employment given in the definition clause. Trained or untrained teachers are notemployees. They are also not employed incapacity. Occasionally, even if they do some administrative work as part of their duty with teaching, since their main job is imparting education, they cannot be held employed inThe Legislature was alive to various kinds of definitions of wordcontained in various previous labour enactment when the Act was passed in 1972. If it intended to cover in the definition ofall kinds of employees, it could have as well used such wide language as is contained in S.2(f) of theProvident Funds Act, 1952 which definesto mean ‘any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of (anNon use of such wide language in the definition ofin S.2(e) of the Act of 1972 reinforces our conclusion that teachers are clearly not covered in the definition.26. Our conclusion should not be misunderstood that teachers although engaged in very noble profession of educating our young generation should not be given any gratuity benefit. There are already in several States separate statutes, rules and regulations granting gratuity benefits to teachers in educational institutions which are more or less beneficial than the gratuity benefits provided under the Act. It is for the Legislature to take cognizance of situation of such teachers in various establishments where gratuity benefits are not available and think of a separate legislation for them in this regard. That is the subject matter solely of the Legislature to consider and decide.