ORDER : S. Sujatha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.9.2013 passed by the Deputy Labour Controller and Appellate Authority for Gratuity vide Annexure "A" wherein the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Authority for Gratuity by Annexure "D" is upheld. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was an employee of the petitioner/institution and he had joined the services of the petitioner/institution on 9.2.1982. The respondent was relieved on 16.4.2007 and had received gratuity of Rs. 2,81,077/-. The respondent filed an application before the second respondent seeking for interest of Rs. 96,032/- as on October 2010 on the gratuity amount of Rs. 2,81,077/- which was contested by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 after considering the case of both the parties, allowed the application directing the petitioner to make the payment of interest of Rs. 96,286/- on the gratuity amount of Rs. 2,81,077/- as claimed by respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority for Gratuity. After hearing the parties, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of the appellate authority at Annexure "A" as well as the order of the 2nd respondent at Annexure "D". 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the respondent was working as a teaching staff and is not entitled for gratuity, the 'Act' is not applicable to the teaching staff. The gratuity amount was paid by mistake. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to make any payment towards the interest as claimed by the respondent and the order passed by the authorities awarding interest is against the principles of law and the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 5. The gratuity amount was paid by mistake. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to make any payment towards the interest as claimed by the respondent and the order passed by the authorities awarding interest is against the principles of law and the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 5. On the contrary learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the order passed by the authorities and contends that subsequent to the amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act with effect from 3.4.1997 and in view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shamaraja Udupa v. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mangalore and Others in Writ Appeal No. 2049/2007 disposed of on 8.11.2012, in view of the express words used in the amended definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Act, the teachers working in educational institution are entitled to the benefit of gratuity under the Act. 6. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, it is clear that Section 2(e) of the Act which defines an 'employee' substituted by Act No. 47/2009 with retrospective effect from 3.4.1997, contemplates thus: "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." 7. A careful reading of this definition makes it clear that the Parliament has used the words, "any kind of work, manual or otherwise". In view of such amended definition of the phrase, "employee", educational institution and the staff working in the educational institution are covered by the definition clause of "employee". This issue is extensively considered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shamaraja Udupa's case cited supra and it is categorically held that the teachers working in the educational institution are entitled to the benefit of payment of gratuity under the Act. 8. This issue is extensively considered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shamaraja Udupa's case cited supra and it is categorically held that the teachers working in the educational institution are entitled to the benefit of payment of gratuity under the Act. 8. It is also brought to my notice that in identical circumstances, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.39655/2014 and connected matters, the coordinate bench of this Court has held that the teaching staff are entitled to 'interest' on the gratuity amount disbursed to them and the institution has no right to claim refund of the amount paid towards the gratuity amount. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent is entitled to 'interest' as per Section 7(3)(a) of the Act on the amount of gratuity paid by the employer. In the circumstances, this writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.