Nomenclature irrelevant; salary payments post-superannuation establish gratuity eligibility under 1972 Act.

We are considering these appeals together, since the factual circumstances presented are analogous and the parties are common.

2. The third respondent in these writ appeals - Smt.Mariamma Baby (“Teacher”), asserts to have been working as the headmistress of the Good Shepherd Public School - of which the appellant is the manager; and she claimed her eligible gratuity, on retiring after attaining the age of superannuation.

3. The statutory Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act”), issued Ext.P4 order granting “Teacher” an amount of Rs.4,32,692/- along with 10% interest. This order was challenged by the appellant before this Court through WP(C) No.10453/2021. The said writ petition was disposed of through Ext.P5 judgment, directing the Controlling Authority to reconsider the matter; and this led to Ext.P6 order, whereby, the said Authority took the same stand as it had taken in Ext.P4 order.

4. Against Ext.P6, the “Teacher” filed GA No.153/2023 before the Statutory Appellate Authority; while, the appellant filed GA No.139/2023 also before the same Authority.

5. The afore proceedings have led to the orders impugned in these appeals, which confirmed the conclusions of the Controlling Authority.

6. Sri.Ashok Shenoy B. – appearing for the appellant in both these matters, argued that the Controlling Authority has erred in granting the amount in question to the “Teacher” because, she worked only as a consultant without being in permanent employment, particularly after she had superannuated from service on 31.03.2012. He contended that the Controlling Authority or the Appellate Authority, did not evaluate this properly; and hence that the school has been constrained to approach this Court. He concluded, saying that the award of interest at 10% is also excessive and that not more than 8% could have been granted.

7. Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash – learned counsel for the teacher, in response, refuted the afore submissions, saying that, going by Ext.P2 pleadings of the appellant before the Controlling Authority, it is expressly admitted that even after superannuation of his client on 31.03.2012, she was appointed as a Senior Headmistress; and that thereafter she was engaged as an Academic Co-ordinator till 26.03.2018. He argued that both these posts were substantive in nature; and hence the argument that, she was only working as a consultant – whatever it may mean – would not take it away from the umbra of the “Act'.

8. We have considered the afore submissions closely and we have also gone through the views of the learned Single Judge, as recorded in the impugned judgments.

9. As rightly pointed out by Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, the appellant has, in his counter statement filed before the Controlling Authority, specifically averred that though the “Teacher” had superannuated from the service as a teacher on 31.03.2012, she was appointed as a Senior Headmistress till 2017, albeit on a temporary basis; and that she was paid certain sums as “consultancy fee.” He further avers that, in 2017, the “Teacher” was appointed as an Academic Coordinator till 26.03.2018 and that she was paid Rs.30,000/- per month, again as consultancy charges.

10. However, the Controlling Authority evaluated the evidence on record to find that, in Exts.B1 to B11 series, the “Teacher” had been allowed to sign the registers, along with the other employees; while, in Ext.B4 series, she has been shown to be the Headmistress. The Authority also found that, in Exts.B5 to B8 series, the “Teacher” has been shown to be Senior Headmistress; and that Ext.A3 bank statement endorses this fully, recording the am