ORDER

Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) The present Review Application (RA) has been filed by the applicant seeking review of the order dated 17.04.2023 in OA 865/2023.

2. The aforementioned OA had been filed by the applicant seeking payment of gratuity to the applicant and interest on such delayed payment under Sub-section 3(A) of Section 7 of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This Tribunal vide order dated 17.04.2023 passed the following order:

“On 27.03.2023 this Tribunal has pointed out to the learned counsel for the applicant that the present matter does not falls within the purview of Central Administrative Tribunal. Learned counsel for the applicant requested for some time to seek instructions from his client.

2. Today, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Somerrville School, Noida is Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) affiliated School and hence it comes under the jurisdiction of the CAT. However, perusal of the CAT Act 1985 and the relevant schedule containing the list of organizations/institutions which have been notified by the Government under the CAT, does not show that such institution is within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. In view of this, the subject matter of the present OA does not falls under the purview of the CAT and the same is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. There shall be no order as to costs.”

3. The applicant in his RA has mentioned the following grounds for reviewing the aforementioned order.

3.1 That the Tribunal erroneously decided that the subject matter of the OA does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Tribunal erroneously mentioned that as per Appendix 6 of the CAT, Rules of Practice, 1993, the institution in which the applicant was working namely Somerville School, Noida is not one of the institutions notified by the Chairman, CAT for which the CAT has jurisdiction. Particularly, Rule 154 (b) of the CAT Rules of Practice, 1993 states that the department-

wise classification shall be made in accordance with the Appendix VI, as may be modified by the Chairman from time to time.

3.2 Learned counsel for the applicant states that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Independent Schools Federation of India (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and anr . in Civil Appeal No.8162/2012 has held that the private teachers will be considered under the definition of employee as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In pursuance with the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Registry of the CAT has not amended the list of institutions under Rule 154 (b) of the CAT Rules of Practice 1993. Further, the learned counsel for the applicant states that the OA is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled Birla Institute of Technology Vs. The State of Jharkhand & ors ., Civil Appeal No.2530/2012. He mentions that the list appearing as Appendix VI of the CAT Rules of Practice, 1993 was outdated and it should have been amended by the Chairman in view of the aforementioned judgment. In view of this, the Single Bench has erred in holding that the subject matter of the OA does not come under the purview of the CAT.

3.3 Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the Single Bench has dismissed the OA at the preliminary stage without issuing notice to the respondents and giving liberty to the applicant to defend his case, based on the noting of the Registry that the subject matter of the OA does not come under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant have no relevance to the present case. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Independent Schools Federation case (supra) pertains to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuit