JUDGMENT : S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. These two writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners challenging the validity of Sec. 2(e) and Sec. 13A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as being unconstitutional and void in the eye of law. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents, their officers, subordinate servants and agents to refrain from taking any steps pursuant to enforcement of the provisions of Sec. 2(e) and Sec. 3A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 against the petitioners. The main grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the retrospective effect given to the aforesaid provisions from 3rd April 1997. According to the petitioners, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009, having received assent from the President on 31st December 2009 as published in the Gazette of India, Extra Part II, Section 1 on 31st December 2009, it cannot be given retrospective effect from 3rd April 1997. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the retrospective date of 3rd April 1997 has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The provisions being violative of fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300A of the Constitution of, India, the substitution of Sec. 2(e) and the insertion of Sec. 13-A in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, are bad in law and ultravires the aforesaid provisions. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they are running several educational institutions and imparting education to students and carrying on educational activities by taking annual fees and donations from public at large. They are running in deficit as they are not engaged in any other trade or commercial activity. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that prior to the amendment of 2009, the definition of employee u/Sec. 2(e) was as under:- Employee' means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages in any establishment., factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semiskilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity. 4. 4. He would further contend that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shantiben L. Christian vs. Administrative Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal School Board, (2001) 2 GLR 1626 , has held that teacher cannot be said to be an employee as defined u/s 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 5. He also relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association vs. Administrative Officer, 2004 (100) FLR 601 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court held that the teachers are clearly not intended to be covered by the definition of employee as defined u/s 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the appeal preferred by the Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying on some more decisions of the Supreme Court, which will be discussed at appropriate stage, contended that the petitioners' right and interest have been gravely prejudiced in view of the amended Sec. 2(e) and Sec. 13A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and those amendments have resulted in manifest injustice, and the petitioners have to pay gratuity of the past period to the teachers, the amendments having been made from retrospective date. 7. It is also submitted that the effect of the amendment would, in fact, nullify the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association (supra), having given effect from retrospective date. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents referring to the provisions of the Amended Act would contend that the amendment has been made for validation of payment of gratuity, which the Legislature intended to introduce on 3rd April 1997. He also placed reliance on the 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' for enacting the amended Sec. 2(e) and insertion of Sec. 13A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, from retrospective date. 9. It appears that one Shantiben L. Christian moved against the Administrative Officer. Ahmedabad Municipal School Board, in a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 5272 of 1987 for payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 10. During the pendency of the said writ petition, Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide Notification No. S.O. 1080 dated 3rd April 1997, extended the benefit of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 10. During the pendency of the said writ petition, Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide Notification No. S.O. 1080 dated 3rd April 1997, extended the benefit of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972, to the employees of schools, wherein ten or more employees are employed on any day preceding 12 months. 11. A Full Bench of this Court by judgment in Shanitben L. Christian (supra) dismissed the claim for payment of gratuity. As the said petitioner was not in a position to move before the Supreme Court, Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association moved before the Supreme Court challenging the aforesaid decision. The Supreme Court by its decision in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association (supra) while held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, 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., gratuity in its etymological sense is a gift especially for services rendered or return for favours received, further held that teachers are not covered by the definition of employee u/Sec. 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972, as was in vogue and observed as under:- It is for the Legislature to take cognizance of the 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. 12. It was in this background that as the Parliament decided to give effect to the intention of the Government of India as made by Notification No. S.O. 1080 dated 3rd April 1997, and thereby, amended the relevant provisions by substitution of Sec. 2(e) and insertion of Sec.13-A by the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 as evident from the Statement of Objects and Reasons and quoted hereunder:- Prefatory Note - Statement of Objects and Reasons.-The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides for payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway companies, shops or other establishment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the said Act empowers the Central Government to apply the provisions of the said Act by notification in the Official Gazette to such other establishments or class of establishments in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day preceding twelve months. Accordingly, the Central Government had extended the provisions of the said Act to the educational institutions employing ten or more persons by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Number S.O. 1080, dated the 3rd April, 1997. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6369 of 2001, dated the 13th January, 2004, in Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers' Assn. vs. Administrative Officer, 2004 (100) FLR 601 (SC), had felt that if it was extended to cover in the definition of employee, all kind of employees, it could have as well used such wide language as Is contained in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions 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. It had been held that non-use of such wide language in the definition of employee under clause (e) of Section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 reinforces the conclusion that teachers are clearly not covered in the said definition. 3. Keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is proposed to widen the definition of employee under the said Act In order to extend the benefit of gratuity to the teachers. Accordingly, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2007 and same was referred to the Standing Committee on Labour which made certain recommendations. After examining those recommendations, it was decided to give effect to the amendment retrospectively with effect from the 3rd April, 1997, the date on which the provisions of the said Act were made applicable to educational institutions. 4. Accordingly, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2007 was withdrawn and a new Bill, namely the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2009 having retrospective effect was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 24th February, 2009. However, due to dissolution of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha, the said Bill lapsed. 4. Accordingly, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2007 was withdrawn and a new Bill, namely the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2009 having retrospective effect was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 24th February, 2009. However, due to dissolution of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha, the said Bill lapsed. In view of the above, it is considered necessary to bring the present Bill. 5. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives. In the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in Sec. 2 for clause (e), following clause has been substituted:- (e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity." After Sec. 13 of the Principal Act, Sec.13-A was inserted for validation of payment of gratuity, which reads as under: 13A. Validation of payment of gratuity.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, for the period commencing on and from the 3rd day of April, 1997 and ending on the day on which the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009, receives the assent of the President, the gratuity shall be payable to an employee in pursuance of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Number S.O. 1080, dated the 3rd day of April, 1997 and the said notification shall be valid and shall be deemed always to have been valid as if the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 had been in force at all material times and the gratuity shall be payable accordingly. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall extend, or be construed to extend, to affect any person with any punishment or penalty whatsoever by reason of the non-payment by him of the gratuity during the period specified in this section which shall become due In pursuance of the said notification. 13. Now, in view of the substituted definition of employee' under sec. 13. Now, in view of the substituted definition of employee' under sec. 2(e) any person, who is employed for wages in any kind of work in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which the Act applies, except the employees of the Central Government or State Governments, is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The benefit of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was intended to be extended by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Notification No. S.O. 1080 dated 3rd April 1997 to the employees of the educational institutions, including the teachers, but it could not be given effect to the teachers in view of the decision rendered by this High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association (supra). However, the intention was validated by the amended Sec. 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. To ensure validation of payment of gratuity with effect from 3rd April 1997, that is the date the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment issued the Notification contained in S.O. No. 1080 dated 3rd April 1997, Sec. 13-A was inserted after Sec. 13 in the Principal Act. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to different decisions rendered by this Court and the Supreme Court whereunder the Courts held that teachers were not entitled for the benefits under certain Acts. In the case of Miss A. Sundarambal vs. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, 1988 (57) FLR 462 (SC) the Supreme Court held that the teachers employed by educational institutions cannot be called as workmen within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, though school was an industry, and thereby held that they were not entitled for the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as under:- 10.....The question for consideration is whether even after the inclusion of the above two classes of employees in the definition of the expression workman in the Act a teacher in a school can be called a workman We are of the view that the teachers employed by educational institutions whether the said institutions are imparting primary, secondary, graduate or postgraduate education cannot be called as 'workmen' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. Imparting of education which is the main function of teachers cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or technical work or clerical work. Imparting of education is in the nature of a mission or a noble vocation. A teacher educates children, he moulds their character, builds up their personality and makes them fit to become responsible citizens. Children grow under the care of teachers. The clerical work, if any they may do, Is only incidental to their principal work of teaching. We agree with the reasons given by the High Court for taking the view that teachers cannot be treated as workmen as defined under the Act. It is not possible to accept the suggestion that having regard to the object of the Act, all employees in an industry except those falling under the four exceptions (i) to (iv) in section 2(s) of the Act should be treated as workmen. The acceptance of this argument will render the words 'to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work' meaningless. A liberal construction as suggested would have been possible only in the absence of these words. The decision in May and Baker (India) Ltd. vs. Their Workmen precludes us from taking such a view. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was right in holding that the appellant was not a workman though the school was an industry in view of the definition of workman as it now stands. 15. Whether the teachers of educational institutions were entitled to the benefits under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, or not fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Haryana Unrecognised Schools Association vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 225 . 15. Whether the teachers of educational institutions were entitled to the benefits under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, or not fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Haryana Unrecognised Schools Association vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 225 . In the said case, the Supreme Court held that teachers of educational institutions are not entitled for such benefits, and the notification issued under the said Act were held to be bad. At paragraph No. 10, the following observations were made: 10. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions as well as the object of the legislation as indicated earlier make it explicitly clear that the State Government can add to either part of the Schedule any employment where persons are employed for hire or reward to do any work skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical if the persons employed do not do the work of any skilled or unskilled or of a manual or clerical nature then it would not be possible for the State Government to include such an employment in the Schedule in exercise of power u/s 27 of the Act. Since the teachers of an educational institution are not employed to do any skilled or unskilled or manual or clerical work and therefore could not be held to be an employee u/s 2(i) of the Act it is beyond the competence of the State Government to bring them under the purview of the Act by adding the employment in educational institution in the Schedule in exercise of power u/s 27 of the Act..... 11. Applying the aforesaid dictum to the definition of employee u/s 2(i) of the Act it may be held that a teacher should not come within the said definition. In the aforesaid premises we are of the considered opinion that the teachers of an educational institution cannot be brought within the purview of the Act and the State Government in exercise of powers under the Act is not entitled to fix the minimum wage of such teachers... 16. As noticed above, the question of payment of gratuity to the primary teachers of Ahmedabad Municipal School Board and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 fell for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Shantiben L. Christian vs. Administrative Officer, 2001 (91) FLR 6630 (Guj) (FB). 16. As noticed above, the question of payment of gratuity to the primary teachers of Ahmedabad Municipal School Board and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 fell for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Shantiben L. Christian vs. Administrative Officer, 2001 (91) FLR 6630 (Guj) (FB). In the said case, looking into the definition of employee' as were found in Sec. 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Full Bench held that teaching is not a profession, therefore, it would not come within the meaning of commercial establishment so as to attract the provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and therefore, teachers cannot be considered as employees for the purpose of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 17. The aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Shantiben L Christian (supra) was challenged by the Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association before the Supreme Court reported in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association (supra). By that time, the Government of India from its Ministry of Labour and Employment issued notification dated 3rd April 1997 in exercise of powers conferred u/Sec. 1(3)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the benefit of payment of gratuity was extended to educational institutions in which ten or more persons are/were employed on any day preceding twelve months. The Supreme Court having noticed the Notification dated 3rd April 1997 and the definition of employee as was in vogue under the un-amended Sec. 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, while upheld the decision of the Full Bench of this Court that teachers are not covered within the definition of employees, but in view of the Notification dated 3rd April 1997, following observations were made:- 25. The Legislature was alive to various kinds of definitions of 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 is contained in section 2(1) 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 [art establishment.... Non-use of such wide language in 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 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. 18. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court and to implement the intention of Government of India to provide the benefit of gratuity to all the employees of educational institutions, including teachers, the impugned substitution was made in Sec. 2(e) and Sec. 13A was inserted by the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 (Act 47 of 2009). 19. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned amendment has been made effective from the retrospective date of 3rd April 1997, which has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and thereby said amendment is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 20. It is a settled law that Legislatures can legislate law both prospectively and retrospectively. In the case of Rai Ramkrishna and Others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1667 , the Supreme Court held that the legislative power conferred on the appropriate Legislature to enact law in respect of topics covered by the several entries in the three Lists can be exercised both prospectively and retrospectively. Where the Legislature can make a valid law, it may provide not only for the prospective operation of the material provisions of the said law, but it can also provide for the retrospective operation of the said provisions. The following observations were made by the Supreme Court: 10. Where the Legislature can make a valid law, it may provide not only for the prospective operation of the material provisions of the said law, but it can also provide for the retrospective operation of the said provisions. The following observations were made by the Supreme Court: 10. The other point on which there is no dispute before us is that the legislative power conferred on the appropriate legislatures to enact laws in respect of topics covered by several entries in the three Lists can be exercised both prospectively and retrospectively. Where the legislature can make a valid law, it may provide not only for the prospective operation of the material provisions of the said law, but it can also provide for the retrospective operation of the said provisions. Similarly, there is no doubt that the legislative power in question includes the subsidiary or the auxiliary power to validate laws which have been found to be invalid if a law passed by a legislature is struck down by the Courts as being invalid for one infirmity or another, it would be competent to the appropriate legislature to cure the said infirmity and pass a validating law so as to make the provisions of the said earlier law effective from the date when it was passed. This position is treated as firmly established since the decision of the Federal Court in the case of AIR 1941 16 (Federal Court). 21. From the aforesaid observations it will be evident that the legislative power conferred on the Legislature includes the subsidiary or ancillary power to validate laws, which have been found to be invalid. if law passed by the Legislature is struck down by the Court as being invalid for one infirmity or another, it will be competent to the appropriate Legislature to cure this infirmity and pass the validating law so as to make the provision of the said earlier law effective from the date when it was passed. It may be open to a party affected by the provisions of the Act to contend that retrospective operation of the Act so completely alters the character of the tax imposed by it as to take it outside the limits of the entry, which gives the Legislature competence to enact the law, but such is not the question raised in the present writ petitions. 22. 22. In the case of Mahadeolal Kanodia vs. The Administrator-general of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 936 , the Supreme Court held that statutory provisions creating substantive rights or taking away substantive rights are ordinarily prospective; they are retrospective only if by express words or by necessary implication the Legislature has made them retrospective; and the retrospective operation will be limited only to the extent to which it has been so made by express words or by necessary implication. 23. In the present case, we find that no substantive right was earlier created in favour of the schools nor any such substantive right has been taken away. The operation is retrospective is explicit from the express words used by the Legislature in the newly inserted Sec. 13-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The intention of the Legislature is clear from the "Statement of Objects and Reasons" of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009, as quoted above in the preceding paragraph. The words of Sec. 2(e) and Sec.13-A being plain, normal and grammatically correct, and the intention of the Legislature being clear, and the provision being unambiguous, and not being capable of two meanings; the strict rule of interpretation is not necessary to be made in the present case. 24. In view of the "Statement of Objects and Reasons" of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009, giving effect to the amended Act with effect from 3rd April 1997 having nexus with the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment Notification contained in S.O. 1080 dated 3rd April 1997, and as the appropriate Legislature can enact the laws in respect of topics both prospectively and retrospectively, and it does not take away any right of the petitioners, we hold that the substituted Sec. 2(e) and the newly inserted Sec.13-A of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 are neither violative of Article 14 nor violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and in absence of any infirmity, we hold them as good. 25. In absence of any merit, both the writ petitions are dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.