JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 02.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No.53 of 2007 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the LPA filed by the appellant herein and confirmed the order dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. No.2572 of 2005.

2. The controversy involved in this appeal is a short one as would be clear from the facts stated infra.

3. The appellant is a premier technical educational institute of repute in the country. It is known as "Birla Institute of Technology" (BIT).

4. Respondent No.4 joined the appellant-Institute as Assistant Professor on 16.09.1971 and superannuated on 30.11.2001 after attaining the age of superannuation.

5. Respondent No.4 then made a representation to the appellant and prayed therein for payment of gratuity amount which, according to respondent, was payable to him by the appellant under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short called "The Act"). The appellant, however, declined to pay the amount of gratuity as demanded by respondent No.4.

6. Respondent No.4, therefore, filed an application before the controlling authority under the Act against the appellant and claimed the amount of gratuity which, according to him, was payable to him under the Act.

7. By order dated 07.09.2002, the controlling authority (respondent No.3) allowed the application filed by respondent No.4 and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,38,796/- along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. towards the gratuity to respondent No.4.

8. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the appellate authority under the Act. By order dated 15.04.2005, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The appellant felt aggrieved and carried the matter to the High Court in a writ petition. The High Court (Single Judge) by order dated 12.01.2007 dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders of the authorities passed under the Act. The appellant then filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench against the order passed by the Single Judge. The LPA was also dismissed by the impugned order which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the appellant-Institute in this Court.

9. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the Courts below were justified in holding that respondent No.4 was entitled to claim gratuity amount from the appellant (employer) under the Act.

10. Heard Mr. Shambo Nandy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1-3 and Mr. Sunil Roy, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find merit in this appeal.

12. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the issue involved in this appeal remains no longer res integra and is decided by this Court in Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association vs. Administrative Officer and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 755 in favour of the appellant.

13. The question arose for consideration in the case of Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association (supra) as to whether "Teacher" could be regarded as an "employee" under Section 2(e) of the Act and, if so, whether he/she is entitled to claim gratuity amount from his employer in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

14. The two-Judge Bench examined this question in detail. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari speaking for the Bench held that a teacher is not an employee within the meaning of the expression "employee" as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and hence he/she is not entitled to claim any gratuity amount from his employer under the Act. In other words, it was held that since a teacher is not an employee under Section 2(e) of the Act, he has no right to invoke the provisions of the Act for claiming gratuity under the Act from his/her employer.

15. It is appo