Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 486 (MP)

Principal Ordinance Factory v. C. R. Nathan

2017-04-11

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Challenging the order dated 29.11.2014 passed by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also the order dated 23.06.2015 passed by the appellate authority, petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. By the order impugned the authority competent directed to make the payment of the remaining amount of the gratuity to the petitioner along with interest which was confirmed by the appellate authority. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the respondent being teacher do not fall within the definition of the workman or the employee as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Therefore, adjudication made by the competent authority is not warranted. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association v. Administrative Officer and Ors. reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1426. However, it is submitted that the order passed is without jurisdiction more so in terms of the agreement entered into between the representatives of the management (Annexure-P/2) after attaining the age of superannuation ?rd of amount of gratuity be paid to them and ?rd of the amount be utilized for the betterment of the School. Therefore, in terms of the said agreement respondent is not entitle to claim any amount. 4. On the other hand, respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the Paragraph-26 of the judgment passed by the Supreme court in the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association (Supra) wherein it is directed that the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act so far as it relates to the definition of teachers is required to be amended, in furtherance thereto draft was prepared and in 2009 the amendment has been brought under the definition of the employee under Section 2E in the Payment of Gratuity Act wherein the word "in any kind of work manual or otherwise" has been added which include the work of a teacher. 5. Considering the said amendment, Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Shamaraja Udupa v. Asst. Labour Commissioner, Mangalore and Ors. 5. Considering the said amendment, Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Shamaraja Udupa v. Asst. Labour Commissioner, Mangalore and Ors. considered the judgment of the Supreme Court and the new amendment brought and directed to payment of the gratuity, therefore, maintaining the said ratio and the reasoning respondent is also entitle to get the gratuity as directed by the competent authority confirmed by the appellate authority. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and on perusal of the amended definition of the employee in Section-2E which was amended w.e.f. 31.12.2009, it is apparent that any person who is employee on any terms and conditions "in any kind of work manual or otherwise" would come within the purview of teacher. 7. The aforesaid amendment has been brought in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Asst. (Supra). However, the teachers do not included within the definition of the employee. In such circumstances, when an employee has approached before the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for releasing the remaining amount, the Court below has rightly allowed the same, and the said order has rightly been confirmed by the appellate authority. 8. It is to be noted that after the directions issued by the Supreme Court and in view of the amendment brought in the definition of the employee the person who is discharging any kind of work manual or otherwise fall within the purview of the teacher is added, therefore, the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant that the respondent, that petitioner do not come within the definition of the employee is devoid of merit. Therefore, the competent authority has rightly adjudicated the payment of the gratuity along with interest. 9. Now recovery to the argument of execution of the agreement by the members of the Association is concerned, on perusal thereof it do not reveal that the said agreement has been duly executed under the law communicating to the employees binding on them. Moreso, the said agreement is now in the shape of advice, not attained finality, therefore, the agreement is having no application in the facts of the case. 10. Moreso, the said agreement is now in the shape of advice, not attained finality, therefore, the agreement is having no application in the facts of the case. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order impugned passed by the competent authority and the appellate authority do not warrant any interference and hereby upheld. As per order of the competent authority, petitioner may take appropriate steps to pay the amount of gratuity, otherwise, filing the application by the respondent the competent authority may take appropriate steps for compliance of the order.