Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.
Gautam Sarkar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
WPA Nos. 5745, 8114 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT - VALIDITY OF GRATUITY PAYMENT - SECTION 2(E), 7(2), 8, 13A - VALIDITY OF PAYMENT OF GRATUITY TO TEACHERS PRIOR TO 1997 - PAYMENT OF GRATUITY TO TEACHERS PRIOR TO 1997 IS VALID AS PER THE AMENDMENT ACT OF 2009 - THE SCHOOL'S OBLIGATION TO DETERMINE AND DISBURSE GRATUITY UNDER SECTION 7(2) - CERTIFICATE OFFICER'S AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES UNDER SECTION 8 - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 4 IN LIGHT OF THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2(E) - ELIGIBILITY FOR GRATUITY PAYMENT BASED ON SERVICE PERIOD AND DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE.
Fact of the Case:
Aditya Birla Vani Bharati School challenged the order of the Certificate Officer and the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for non-payment of gratuity to a teacher who served from 1968 to 2006. The school claimed that the teacher was not covered by the Act and that the school was not liable to pay gratuity prior to 1997.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the teacher was an employee within the meaning of the Act, as amended in 2009, and was entitled to gratuity. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Independent Schools' Federation of India (Regd.) v. Union of India & another, which held that teachers who were in service as on 3rd April, 1997 and had rendered service of not less than 5 years were entitled to gratuity, even if they had retired or terminated their services prior to the amendment of the Act in 2009.
Issues: 1. Whether the teacher was an employee within the meaning of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as amended in 2009. 2. Whether the school was liable to pay gratuity to the teacher prior to 1997.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the teacher was an employee within the meaning of the Act, as amended in 2009, and was entitled to gratuity. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Independent Schools' Federation of India (Regd.) v. Union of India & another, which held that teachers who were in service as on 3rd April, 1997 and had rendered service of not less than 5 years were entitled to gratuity, even if they had retired or terminated their services prior to the amendment of the Act in 2009.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the school's writ applications and upheld the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Certificate Officer.
JUDGMENT :
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
1. Two separate writ applications have been filed on behalf of Aditya Birla Vani Bharati School (hereinafter referred to as the “school”). In the first writ application, the school has challenged the order dated 20th February 2023 passed by the Certificate Officer in Certificate case no. 197 (M) of 2021-2022 as also the order dated 25th February 2020 passed by the Controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). The first writ application has been filed through the principal of the school, who is also the secretary of the managing committee of the school.
2. The second writ application has been filed by the managing committee of the school, challenging the self-same orders, although, the grounds of challenge in the second writ application is different from the first. The respondent no. 4 in both the aforesaid writ applications is Gadadhar Paul (hereinafter referred to as the “teacher”), who admittedly was a teacher of the school and had served school for the period between 1968 and 2006.
3. Since both the writ applications raise common questions, those are taken up for hearing together.
4. Although, the school initially did not adhere to the teacher’s request for payment of gratuity, records would reveal that sometimes in or about 11th December 2015, a sum of Rs.1,09,113/- was disbursed in favour of the teacher on account of gratuity, as determined by the school. Since, according to the teacher, the school had made short payment of gratuity, the teacher filed an application in Form-‘N’ before the Controlling Authority for determination of gratuity payable to the teacher. The said proceedings were contested by the school and ultimately, by order dated 25th February 2020, the Controlling Authority was, inter alia, pleased to pass an order in Form-‘N’ and by issuing notice in Form-‘R’ dated 6th March 2020, had called upon the school to make payment of Rs.3,05,518/- towards the differential amount of gratuity payable to the teacher after giving credit to the sum of Rs.1,09,113/- already paid.
5. Since, the school authorities, despite notice, did not disburse the gratuity, at the instance of the teacher, the Controlling Authority was, inter alia, pleased to issue a certificate under Section 8 of the said Act and the same was remitted to the office of the Certificate Officer for execution. It would appear that, despite receipt of such certificate, the Certificate Officer instead of executing the certificate by letter dated 29th July 2022, had called upon the Controlling Authority to appropriately clarify the circumstances under which the certificate has been issued.
6. Challenging the same, a writ application was filed before this Court. The school, despite being a party to such proceeding and despite service of notice, did not contest. As such, by an order dated 8th February 2023, this Court taking into consideration the fact that there had been no challenge to the determination made by the Controlling Authority was, inter alia, pleased to direct the Certificate Officer to dispose of the certificate case pending before him, without calling for any further clarification either from the Controlling Authority or from the Deputy Director, School Education. It was, however, clarified that the Certificate Officer shall consider the objection, if any, raised by the certificate debtor, being the school authorities and shall dispose of such case in accordance with law.
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the certificate proceedings were ultimately disposed of by order dated 20th February 2023, inter alia, by directing the certificate debtor being the school to pay a sum of Rs.8,63,529/- towards the certificate dues.
8. It is only upon such determination and the direction issued on the certificate debtor, the school has filed the present set of writ applications, challenging not only the order passed by the Certificate Officer but also the parent determin
Teachers who were in service as on 3rd April, 1997 and had rendered service of not less than 5 years were entitled to gratuity, even if they had retired or terminated their services prior to the amen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the teacher was entitled to claim gratuity under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the Repealing Act did not affect her right to do so.
The State of Chhattisgarh is not the employer of teachers in private aided educational institutions, and the liability for gratuity payments lies with the institutions, not the State.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the payment of gratuity for teachers in the Basic Education Department is governed by specific Government Orders, and petitioners must plead f....
Nomenclature irrelevant; salary payments post-superannuation establish gratuity eligibility under 1972 Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
