Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1127 (DEL)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. JAI RANI

2006-07-07

SHLV NARAYAN DHINGRA

body2006
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner has challenged the legality of the judgment of the Appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, holding that the respondent who retired as a teacher/head mistress was covered by payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was entitled to claim difference in the gratuity as payable under the act and the gratuity received by her under the service Rules. ( 2 ) THE respondent had been working as a teacher/head Mistress in MCD School of nazafgarh Zone. She was appointed as a teacher on January 3, 1955 and retired as Head Mistress en January 31, 1995. At the time of retirement, she was paid gratuity of Rs. 51480 under the service Rules. The Controlling Authority after holding that she was entitled for gratuity under the Act, made calculations of petitioner to pay the difference of Rs. 83,580 with simple interest @ 10% per annum. An appeal before appellate authority failed, hence the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE only contention pressed by the writ petitioner is that the decision of the Controlling authority as well as of Appellate Authority were contrary to the law of the land as laid down by Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Association v. Administrative Officer and Others, AIR 2004 sc 1426 : (2004) 1 SCC 755 : 2004-I-LLJ-596. ( 4 ) THE respondent, on the other hand, has taken the stand that the above judgment laid down law in respect of teachers and was not applicable in her case since she did not retire as a teacher but retired as a Head Mistress of the school and the nature of her duties were. totally different from that of a teacher. She, ' therefore, was covered by the definition of employee as given in Section 2 (e) of the payment of Gratuity Act. It is argued that Head mistress being head of the school, all teachers. work under her direct supervision, and she was ' responsible for administration of the school. Reliance was placed on duty chart of Head mistress as given in Education Rules and regulations and it was stated that as per this chart she was responsible for watch and ward and cleanliness of the school for operating Boys fund Account and for the maintenance of all records i. e. cash book vouchers etc. Reliance was placed on duty chart of Head mistress as given in Education Rules and regulations and it was stated that as per this chart she was responsible for watch and ward and cleanliness of the school for operating Boys fund Account and for the maintenance of all records i. e. cash book vouchers etc. ; for payment of salaries to the staff working under her and for maintaining contingent amount or amount drawn on pay bills at the time of drawing salaries of teachers. ( 5 ) IT has not been disputed that the teachers were not covered under Payment of Gratuity. Act in view of law laid down by the Supreme court. However, it was submitted that since payment of Gratuity Act was beneficial legislation intending to give benefits to its employees, the provisions of the Act should be construed liberally in a way so that the beneficial intention is not frustrated and Head mistress/head Master should not be equated with the teachers. ( 6 ) IN Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers association v. Administrative Officer and others (supra) case the High Court of Gujarat had rejected the claim of one of the teachers for payment of gratuity under the Payment of gratuity Act holding that a teacher was not covered under the definition of employees as contained in Section 2 (e) of the Act and hence can raise no claim of gratuity under the Act. The Association of Teachers filed a SLP with the leave of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since the judgment of Gujarat High Court was going to affect the teachers as a class. After considering arguments advanced by both sides and taking into account the definition of i employee under different labour legislations, the Supreme Court held at p. 601 and 602 of LLJ: "20. An educational institution, therefore, is an "establishment" notified under Section l (3) (c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1 1972. On behalf of the Municipal corporation, it is contended that the only beneficial effect of the notification issued under Section l (3) (c) of the Act of 1972, is that such non-teaching staff of educational institutions as answer the description of any of the employments 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 the 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 the 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", "semi-skilled" or "unskilled". These three words used in association with each other intend to convey that a person who is "unskilled" is one who 5 is not "skilled", and a person who is "semiskilled" may be one who falls between the 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, analyze 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 spciis may be applied. The meaning of each of these words is to be understood by the company it keeps. It is illegitimate 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". 23. 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". 23. The word "unskilled" is opposite of the word "skilled" and the word "semiskilled" 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 "semi-skilled" 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 the expression "unskilled" or "skilled" cannot, therefore, be accepted. The teachers might have been imparted training for teachers or there may be cases where teachers who are employed in primary schools are untrained. A trained teacher is not described in the industrial field or service jurisprudence as a "skilled employee". Such adjective generally is used for an employee doing manual or technical work. Similarly, the words "semi-skilled" 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", "semiskilled" and "unskilled" qualify the words "manual", "supervisory", "technical" or "clerical" or the above words qualify the word "work". Even if all the words are read 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. . 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 the word "employee" contained in various previous labour enactments 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 if contained in Section 2 (j) 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 section 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 a very noble profession of educating our young generation should not be given any gratuity benefit. There are already it geveral 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 legislatures 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. " ( 7 ) THE plea of the respondent that Head master/head Mistress was not a teacher and, therefore, was not covered by the judgment of supreme Court must fail. Head Master/head mistress is a word equivalent to and means "head/teacher. The administrative functions which are performed by the Head Master/head mistress in the school are apart from teaching functions which Head Master/head Mistress has to perform. Head Master/head mistress is a word equivalent to and means "head/teacher. The administrative functions which are performed by the Head Master/head mistress in the school are apart from teaching functions which Head Master/head Mistress has to perform. ( 8 ) IT is correct that in view of the administrative work, a Head Master/head/ mistress may devote less time to the teaching or may stay longer than the other teachers in the school so that he can do justice with administrative work which he/she is supposed to do as head teacher, but Head Master/head mistress basically remains a teacher. In chamber's 21st Century dictionary when one looks for the word "head Master/head mistress", he is directed to look for "head teacher. Head Teacher is described as principal teacher in charge of school, also called as Head Master or Head Mistress. In webster's DICTIONARY and BLACK's LAW dictionary Head Master/head Mistress is described a man who deals with the administration of the private school, the man responsible for instructions given at school for administration. Thus, Head Master is nothing but head teacher. He is responsible for overall education being imparted in the school and for keeping high standard of the education in the school. Head Masters in MCD school are always promoted out of the teachers. They are not appointed directly in the school. Even in the Rules and Regulations of Education department relied upon by the petitioner and filed as Annexure "a" to rejoinder, the duties of the inspector have been enumerated in Rule 7 and the duties show that term "head teacher" has been used instead of "head master". In my opinion, Head Master/head mistress cannot be described as a class separate from the teachers. Teachers and Head master/mistress form one class in the school and cannot be treated different. The above judgment squarely covers the case of the respondent. Supreme Court has categorically stated that the teachers are not employed in managerial or administrative capacity and occasionally even if they have to do some administrative work as part of their duties with teaching, since their main job is to impart education, they cannot be held employed in managerial or administrative capacity. I consider that a Head Master/head Mistress's basic duty is to impart education to the children and to see that the other teachers working in the school also impart education properly. I consider that a Head Master/head Mistress's basic duty is to impart education to the children and to see that the other teachers working in the school also impart education properly. The administrative work is incidental to the job of head Master/head Mistress (Head Teacher)and the administrative work does not take away the character of a teacher from the Head master/head Mistress. ( 9 ) THE respondent herein was governed by service pension and gratuity rules and had received the gratuity amount as per these rules. Although the amount received by the respondent under the service rules was less than the amount payable under Payment of Gratuity act but one has to keep in mind that the respondent was not merely paid gratuity but was given all terminal benefits as per the rules including pension which may not be applicable in case of workman working in factories and other establishments. ( 10 ) IN view of the judgment of in ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' association v. Administrative Officer and others (supra), in which it has been held that the teachers were not covered by the definition of employee as contained in Section 2 (e) of the act and hence can raise no claim of gratuity under the Act, and in view of my holding that head Master/head Mistress and teachers form one class and Head Master/head Mistress is a head teacher, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Appellate Authority and controlling Authority are set aside. The respondent shall pay back the excess amount if already received in terms of the order. However, parties to bear their own cost.