Following the 2009 Amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act, teachers are statutorily included within the definition of 'employee' with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997, entitling them to gratuity benefits from their employers, thereby superseding earlier judicial findings to the contrary.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pursuant to the Order dated 03.09.2011 passed in P.G.No.11 of 2010 by the Learned Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad and quash the same and issue such other writ or order or direction…”

2. Heard Sri Ch.Samson Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Facts of the case:

3.1. The 3rd respondent, who was working as a teacher in the petitioner institution, retired on 30.09.2009, upon attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, he approached the 2nd respondent seeking payment of a sum of Rs.2,93,685/- towards gratuity, purportedly under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, placing reliance on the order dated 01.08.2007 passed by the Constitution Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 12492 of 2004. The said judgment categorically held that under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Labour Courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain claims of teachers working in unaided educational institutions and that such claims are required to be agitated before the competent educational authorities.

3.2 In response, the petitioner institution filed its counter in P.G.No.11 of 2010 on 24.02.2011, specifically contending that any claim for gratuity under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, must be preferred before the competent authority prescribed thereunder and not before the Labour Court functioning under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers’ Association vs. Administrative Officer¹AIR 2004 SC 1426, reiterating that the teachers are excluded from the ambit of “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, even after its amendment.

3.3 However, the Labour Court, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed orders on 06.11.2010, in favour of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent seeking reopening of P.G.No.11 of 2010. Upon such reopening, the petitioner filed an additional counter and written submissions and arguments were duly advanced.

3.4 Despite the same, the 2nd respondent, without properly appreciating the legal position and the binding precedents, passed the impugned order, affirming the earlier order, dated 06.11.2010, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,93,685/- to the credit of the 3rd respondent with the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour.

4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent failed to consider the petitioner’s specific contention regarding the competent authority designated under Section 3 of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 and erroneously assumed jurisdiction which it does not possess. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from lack of jurisdiction, non-consideration of binding precedent and misapplication of law. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent committed a grave error in entertaining the application filed by the 3rd respondent, who claimed to be a “workman” within the meaning of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The reliance placed by the 3rd respondent on the judgment in W.P. No. 12492 of 2004 is wholly misplaced, as the said judgment merely directed payment of gratuity under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act and did not extend the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act to teachers.

4.2 The 2nd respondent failed to consider the binding precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra, wherein a Constitution Bench categorically held that a teacher does not fall within the definition of an “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Significantly, even after t