IMPORTANT POINT
Teachers employed in schools do not fall within the definition of employee as contained in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and hence can raise no claim to gratuity under the Act.

Headnote:(i) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972-Section 2(e)-Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1949- Employee -Definition-Claim of teachers for payment of gratuity-Whether maintainable-(No)-Teachers who are mainly employed for imparting education are not intended to be covered by definition of employee for extending gratuity benefits under the Act-Teachers do not answer description of being employees who are skilled , semi-skilled or unskilled -Teachers are not covered in the definition under the Act-Separate legislation can be enacted to take cognizance of situation of such teachers in various establishments where gratuity benefits are not available.
       Held : 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, gratuity 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 over post-retiral hardships and inconveniences. (Para 7)
       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, semi-skilled or unskilled. These three words used in association which each order 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. (Para 21)
       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. (Para 26)
       (ii) WORDS AND PHRASES-Words skilled , semi-skilled or unskilled -Meaning-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. (Para 21)
       (iii) INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES-Doctrine of pari materia -Reference to other statutes dealing with the same subject or forming part of the same system is a permissible aid to the construction of provisions in a statute. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari, J.-This appeal has been preferred by Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers Association. The Association complains that in the petition filed by an Individual teacher [respondent No. 2 herein] employed in a school run by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the Full Bench of the High Court of Gujarat by impugned judgment dated 04.5.2001 in Special Civil Application No. 5272 of 1987 not only rejected the claim of the teacher for payment of gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 [for short the Act but has decided an important question of law against the teachers as a class that they do not fall within the definition of employee as contained in Section 2(e) of the Act and hence can raise no claim to gratuity under the Act.

2. The definition of employee contained in section 2(e) of the Act of 1972 reads as under :

2(e). 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, semi-skilled, 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].

[Underlining giving emphasis]

3. One of the learned Judges of the High Court in his separate concurring opinion held that as gratuity payable to teachers employed in schools of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation are governed by statutory regulations known as Gratuity Regulations of the Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad framed by the Corporation under Section 465 (i) (h) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, such teachers even if held to be covered by main part of definition of employee are expressly excluded by the last exclusionary clause of the definition shown by underlining it as above.

4. As all the learned judges have unanimously held that teachers are not covered by the definition of employee under section 2(e) of the Act, it has become necessary for this court to consider the correctness of the view with regard to the applicability of the Act to the teachers as a class.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for all contesting parties. As the legal question involved is general in nature affecting teachers as a class, on our request, senior advocate Dr. Rajeev Dhawan appeared as Amicus Curiae. We are immensely benefited by his able assistance which we thankfully acknowledge.

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 favours received . It 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, gratuity itself suggests that it is a gratuitous payment given to an employee on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 46

IMPORTANT POINTTeachers employed in schools do not fall within the definition of employee as contained in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and hence can raise no claim to gratuity under the Act.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Teachers employed in schools do not fall within the definition of employee as contained in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and hence can raise no claim to gratuity under the Act.