Interpretation of the term 'employee' under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the binding nature of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. A challenge has been laid by the petitioner to order dated 9.6.2005 passed by the Joint Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority.

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No. 3 retired as a Teacher from the petitioner's school on 31.8.2000. She submitted an application to the Controlling Authority for the payment of gratuity on 30.1.2002 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The application was resisted by the petitioner by way of detailed reply. A specific stand was taken by the petitioner before the Controlling Authority that respondent No. 3 being a teacher did not fall within the ambit of definition given in Section 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority directed the petitioner on 27th November,' 2003 to pay gratuity within 30 days to respondent No. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 7 (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 assailing the order dated 27.11.2003 before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 9th June, 2005. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 9th June, 2005.

3. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate strenuously argued that the order passed by the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority dated 27.11.2003 and 9th June, 2005 are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further contended that respondent No. 3 being a teacher did not fall within the expression 'employee' and this position has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association v. Administrative Officer and Ors. (2004) I LLJ 596 SC .

4. The learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents have supported the order passed by the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6. The question whether the teacher falls within the expression "employee" as per Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is no more res integra in view of the categorical pronouncement in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association v. Administrative Officer and Ors. (2004) I LLJ 596 SC , where their Lordships have held as under:

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 expressions 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 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. The Black's Law Dictionary defines these three words as under:

Semi-skilled work.-Work that may require some alertness and close attention, such as inspecting items or machinery for irregularities, or guarding property or people against loss or injury.

Skilled work.-Work requiring the worker to use judgment, deal with the public, analyze facts and figures, or work with abstract ideas at a high level of complexity.

Unskilled work.-Work requiring little or no judgment, and involving simple tasks that can be learned quickly on the job."

In construing the above mentioned three words which are used in association with each other, the rule of construction noscitur a soclis may be applied. The meaning of each of these words is to be understood by the company it keeps. It is a legitimate rule of construction to construe words in an Act of Parliament with referen