The amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 includes teachers in the definition of employee, entitling them to gratuity payments.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

to call for the records in PG.No.1/2013 on the file of the controlling authority “... and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narsapur, W.G.District and quash the order dt.05-11-2014 in P.G.No.1 /2013 by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the same is illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to law ...”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the 3^rd respondent herein has filed P.G.No.1 of 2013 before the 2^nd respondent under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 read with Sub-Rule (i) of Rule 10 of the A.P. Payment of Gratuity Rules claiming Rs.11,36,138/- towards gratuity and interest thereon stating that he has worked as a lecturer and principal in M.R.K. Polytechnic, Veeravasaram from 07.12.1981 to 31.12.2012 i.e. for a period of 31 years and that his last drawn salary was Rs.69,569/-; that the institution failed to pay him the amount due towards gratuity at the time of his superannuation and that he is entitled to claim gratuity. The petitioner herein who is the Secretary and Correspondent of M.R.K. Polytechnic college, Veeravasaram has objected the same by filing a counter affidavit therein. While so, vide order dated 05.11.2014, the 2^nd respondent has passed an exparte order, challenging which the petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 25.08.2015, however, the same was returned by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour vide memo dated 28.07.2016 due to non-submission of the certificate by complying with the statutory requirement of deposit of the amount as per proviso to Section 7(7) of the Act.

3. The case of the petitioner is that M.R.K. Polytechnic is a private unaided educational institution established by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, vide registration No.95 of 1980 and does not come under the purview of “Employer” as defined under Section 2(f) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As such, the 3^rd respondent cannot make any claim for payment of gratuity even against the aforesaid college. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 3^rd respondent worked as lecturer in M.R.K. Polytechnic and his duty is to teach the students, as such his services as teacher does not come under the purview of “employee” as defined under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, while dealing with the provisions of the Gratuity Act in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers Association Vs. Administrative Officers and others, [(2004) 1 SCC 755], held that the services of teachers does not come under the purview of “Employee” as defined under Section 2(3) of the payment of Gratuity Act. The 3^rd respondent, instead of considering the ratio decided in the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court (referred supra), observed that the applicant is entitled for claiming gratuity. Challenging the action of the 2^nd respondent in passing the order dated 05.11.2014, without issuing any notice nor giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The 3^rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit duly denying the contentions raised by the petitioner herein and has further stated that an educational institution is managed by a managing committee, which is a society in which a secretary is the person who is appointed by the society to sue or to be sued on behalf of the society as per the Societies Registration Act. It is further stated that having received the notice with regard to the case filed by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner now cannot contend that the 2^nd respondent has no power or authority to set him exparte and cannot allege that the petitioner was not given further notices intimating the dates of hearing and an opportunity of hearing. Having failed to comply with provisions of Section 7(7) and having got the appeal filed by the petitioner returned for